Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education: A Genealogical Study of the Higher Education Act 3031437055, 9783031437052

Citation preview

Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education A Genealogical Study of the Higher Education Act Allison L. Palmadessa

Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education

Allison L. Palmadessa

Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education A Genealogical Study of the Higher Education Act

Allison L. Palmadessa Department of History Greensboro College Greensboro, NC, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-43705-2    ISBN 978-3-031-43706-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43706-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Credit line: Panther Media GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

For my family who continues to patiently support my work; I love you all.

Preface

The Higher Education Act of 1965 is the most significant federal legislation regarding access to higher education for the broadest spectrum of students. Although legislations such as the Morrill Acts (1862 and 1890), the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill of 1944), and the National Defense Education Act (1958) pre-date the Higher Education Act and had profound impacts on access to higher education for more individuals, they were drafted to respond to very specific needs in their historical context. This does not devalue the importance of higher education legislation prior to 1965; if these policies were not implemented at the federal level, national leaders and policymakers would have no precedence to base the need for federal intervention in higher education, or the foundation to build the argument for access legislation. In this study, congressional debates regarding the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the subsequent reauthorizations are analyzed to piece together the genealogy of this landmark legislation. Reauthorizations and amendments are far more complex than assessing previous processes and policies and revising to correct shortfalls. In the original legislation and in each reauthorization process, political wills were bent, power plays were made, and strategic use of discursive practices were employed to reach an end. That end was not always framed as a benefit for students or equitable practices in the US, or in higher education specifically. Making sure that all who desired a higher education had access, regardless of race, gender, personal wealth, or any other demographic indicator, was not always the

vii

viii 

PREFACE

primary concern. Tax laws, technological innovation, trade viability, economic gains, transfer of wealth, and political leverage were often at the core of the debates, not the welfare of students or value of higher education. These maneuvers and manipulations were effective in 1965, in each reauthorization year, and will be implemented again soon as the Higher Education Act is past due for reauthorization in 2023, the year of this study. Serendipitously, yet unfortunate, higher education holds a primary position in the court of public opinion at this moment. The Supreme Court, just days ago, determined that affirmative action in admissions policies is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision will have a profound impact on equity in higher education and will likely inform congressional debates for the next reauthorization, for better or for worse. The goal of this work is to follow the discourse through history and determine what goals and mechanisms of power were at play in each year of debate regarding the Higher Education Act. Congressional Records from 1965 to 2023 were utilized as the primary data source for this genealogy. My intention is not to undermine any well-intended policymaker’s work on this important legislation; it is to follow the use of historical narratives, metaphors, and discourses that obfuscate power to see how these practices are wielded by those in positions of power. The hope is that this work will inform policymakers and leaders in higher education of the value of higher education in the preservation of the nation-state and the US’s democratic ideals and promote support for the continuation of the quest for a more equitable system of higher education in the United States. Greensboro, NC, USA 10 July 2023

Allison L. Palmadessa

Acknowledgments

This is a work that I considered completing for a long time, and finally began dedicating research efforts toward it in late 2021. I appreciate the support of everyone in my academic community—from students who had to listen to exciting findings when they truly were not interested to colleagues who offered condolence when there were bumps in the road, to my academic leaders who gave me a little extra leeway and time to complete this work in a very demanding academic year—and Milana Vernikova’s editorial team at Palgrave Macmillan for their grace and support throughout the publication process. Most importantly, I thank my family. With each new project comes a new set of challenges and time-consuming setbacks, victories, frustrations, and celebrations. Each step of the way they support me and tolerate all of the time I spend covered in data sets, records, books, and articles, when I could be spending more time with them. Matt, thank you for always encouraging me to complete a new work and understanding why it is so important to me; to our children, Audrey, Sabrina, Natalie, and Matthew— thank you for being the best kids in the world; I am so proud of each of you.

ix

Contents

1 Introduction to the Study  1 2 Establishing  the Need for Higher Education Legislation, 1945 to 1965 15 3 Presidential  Directives and Congressional Negotiations: The Higher Education Act of 1965 31 4 Reauthorization in Times of Crisis, 1968–1976 51 5 Reauthorizing  the Higher Education Act for A Nation at Risk in the 1980s101 6 Preparing  for Challenge and Seeking Change: Reauthorizations in the 1990s141 7 Higher  Education Access, Neoliberalism, and an Uncertain Future: Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act in the Twenty-­First Century181

xi

xii 

Contents

8 The  Future of the Relationship Between the Federal Government and Higher Education209 Index223

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Exclusions from Analysis Table 1.2 Discursive themes, macro and micro Table 1.3 Relevant days of congressional debate in successful HEA reauthorization years

7 8 10

xiii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction to the Study

The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA, 1965) is considered to be one of the most beneficial legislative actions to support access to higher education in the United States. To date, HEA 1965 has been reauthorized or considered for reauthorization eleven times, with eight of these instances resulting in new actions to support equity and inclusion in higher education via financial support or balancing the demographics of the student population. Although each iteration of HEA 1965 supports student access, these results do not come without challenges. The purpose of this study is to uncover the mediation of power and privilege not just in the policy making process, but in the purpose and intent behind the policy that is written and implemented. To complete this study, a combination of policy genealogy and the discourse historical approach in critical discourse studies is employed to analyze the changes in discourse over time in presidential statements, congressional debate records, and the policy text of the HEA 1965 and subsequent reauthorizations. In an effort to uncover the mechanisms of power influencing the policy produced, discourse is analyzed as fragments of text representing the social practices of the site of policy formation, through a lens informed by Foucault’s definition of power as embedded in discursive networks of practice. The research questions guiding this study of HEA 1965 and each reauthorization are as follows: How do presidential agendas influence the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. L. Palmadessa, Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43706-9_1

1

2 

A. L. PALMADESSA

discourse that congressional members employ to create/shape policy? How is hegemonic discourse manipulated to achieve ideological goals through policymaking? How are the discourses of power and privilege represented in the policy? Is the intent of access to higher education negated or supported by the discourse embedded in the policy text? There is extensive literature on the HEA 1965; there are also numerous studies focused upon one reauthorization or addition to the original policy. Each study contributes to the goal of this work to examine the development of policy over an extensive period of time and extrapolate the conflicting intentions and results of this landmark legislation. This study is unique in that it focuses on the deliberations of policymakers at each point of action and considers the discourse, power dynamics, and implications of the original legislation and each reauthorization. Thus, this study provides a complete history of the role of the Higher Education Act in access and affordability, from debates on the floor in 1965 to the most recent reauthorization in 2008 and the progress that results from each amendment. This is of utmost importance as the purpose and value of higher education is presently challenged, and institutions are continuously fighting to serve all who seek higher education.

Research Design To best approach policy in the context of the current study, it is not sufficient to accept the common definition of policy as a set of accepted guidelines or set of laws. Instead, it is most useful to consider policy as a practice, social and discursive, and the result of power dynamics. Levinson et al. (2009) “suggest that the way to unpack policy is to see it as a kind of social practice, specifically, a practice of power” (p. 767). As a practice of power, policy must be considered in the context in which it is created—the process is a complicated set of social processes that function under the guise of creating more democratic participation, particularly in education policy, yet the actual settings typically obfuscate that potential reality (Levinson et al., 2009, pp. 767–770). This is concerning as policy aims to benefit the social good (Shukla, 2017, p.  20), although it is often the manifestation of the elites’ perception of social good (Levinson et  al., 2009, p. 772), ultimately negating the democratization of the policy. Demonstrating this connection, Shukla (2017) posits, “public policy and social good are closely connected: social good symbolizes the aims and objectives that inform a given society and are valued by its citizens,

1  INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 

3

and public policy facilitates the realization of such aims and objectives” (20). If policy is the result of the conception of social good as defined by those in power, how can public policy support the betterment of society? This is further problematized because social good, as defined in current liberal democracies, is restrictive and in need of revision to rise above those restrictions to fulfill expectations. Shukla (2017) argues, “without a wholesome, systematic and effective concept of social good, our public policy— no matter how vigorously implemented—will hardly succeed in accomplishing its task” (p. 20). Tensions exist between what an individual desires and what is best for the many. This can be somewhat rectified through public policy in a liberal state by providing policies that reflect the social framework individuals desire. Without this consideration, Shukla (2017) argues, “democratic politics can hardly realize its full potential” (p. 34). To understand how this is exemplified in policy, Levinson et al. (2009) argue that “A policy as practice approach takes seriously the need for critical work that studies up and uncovers the strategies and mechanisms at work in elite, authorized policy formation processes” (p. 789); in other words, study up, not down, the power structure. Approaching policy through the power structure also connects the social practices and text to discourse. As Levinson et  al. explain, “we understand policy as a complex, ongoing social practice of normative cultural production constituted by diverse actors across diverse contexts…the most immediate product of the policy process should be understood as a normative cultural discourse with positive and negative sanctions,” or a set of rules indicating how the policy is to be implemented, and what happens when it is not accomplished; “[p]olicy thus (a) defines reality, (b) orders behavior, and (sometimes) (c) allocates resources accordingly” (2009, p. 770). To uncover the dynamics of power, hegemonic discourse, and development of policy over time, methods employed must allow for an in-depth analysis, from multiple angles and perspectives, and must connect the data across those points as a network of text meant to create a policy that satisfies both the nuances of power and the external public need. To accomplish this, I merge multiple methodological approaches, creating a means to delve into the codes, practices, and changes over time as codified, and identifiable, in textual data. Policy Genealogy. Studying the development of a policy as a genealogical process allows for a construction of history in areas not typically

4 

A. L. PALMADESSA

considered to have a history—knowledge, truth, discourse—and then positions these imaginary histories as truth. It is particularly important to define discourse; it is a set of statements from an established system that becomes embedded and protected by a border of meaning. The discourses overlap, complement, and often contradict others, making this a field of discourse, as each set of statements or groups of discursive statements ultimately create the discourse, not define the discourse or discourses (Hunkin, 2016). Thus, genealogy is not a linear process; rather, it is a “methodology that recognizes how systems and sets of practices sometimes act to perpetuate power and privilege” and can obfuscate power dynamics and domination (Britton, 2013, p. 17). This follows in Foucault’s conception of genealogy as a historical approach that offers insight into how knowledge is constituted, the roles of discourse, and context. This reveals how power occurs within a set of practices, from in and outside of those practices. Thus, if researchers can analyze the change in policy over time, in the context throughout that time, regimes of power may be uncovered (Britton, 2013). Consistent with Foucauldian tradition, “power, knowledge and discourse come together as a lens for analysis that aims to uncover and understand ‘truth politics’, or how governments attempt to create power mechanisms that govern populations…This emphasizes the changing political rationalities and ambitions” of the government and how it functions; this is by nature of the lens a historical approach that emphasizes the “consequences of discourse” as “uniquely productive for policy analysis.” Essentially, genealogy “involves the critical analysis of historical documents and related texts” (Hunkin, 2016, p. 37). Discourse Historical Approach. The discourse historical approach (DHA) (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009) is a method employed by critical discourse analysts to uncover the ideological nature of language as a means to understand the influence and power of discourse. Methodologically, discourse analysts take discourse as one point of entry into analysis of practices. Because discourse and other moments of practices are dialectically related, the analysis of discourse can lead to insights about other moments of the practice, resulting in understanding that discourse affects power relations, institutions, rituals, and other aspects of social and material reality. When discourse functions as a mechanism of power and domination, it is problematic. Methods of critical discourse analysis (CDA; Fairclough, 2003) such as DHA allow scholars to recognize forms of oppression that may otherwise be obscured by hegemonic relations through the

1  INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 

5

systematic analysis of empirical data, with the intent of theorizing the possible existence of abstract structures as manifest in language. As such, the object of the analysis is discourse, which manifests empirically as texts. Culture of Policy. Stein’s (2004) case study of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) as a means to transition policy analysis from a culture of poverty lens to a more complex system of discourses and social action defined policy culture as a “design for defining and remedying social problems and solutions that is passed between Congress and local government entities (such as schools)” (p. xii). By implementing this methodological framework, Stein found that the transmission of discourse is not linear or hierarchical; rather, it transfers “between and among” the practices and actors’ roles in creating policy (2004, p. xii). Stein argues, “This recursive relationship allows for the consideration of the influence of local practice on Congressional discourse as well as resistance to and adaptation of policy problem and solution definitions at various moments of the policy process” (2004, p. xii). Through the analysis of congressional records, the culture of policy framework creates a means to analyze language and behavior to reveal patterns in the policy process. In the analysis of congressional floor debates, Stein (2004) found that themes emerged across reauthorization years facilitating the emergence of trends and categories, resulting in two prevalent themes. Stein then focused on the discourse within the two prevalent themes to discern the intent of the policymakers and the policies, bringing the framework full circle, connecting the discourse of the culture of policy to the floor debates, and, ultimately, to the policies and implementation practices.

Data Collection and Organization By employing these complementary methodological frameworks, I am able to discern a historical narrative embedded in discourse, the changes over time, and, ultimately, uncover the mechanisms of power and culture that result in the legislation and its reauthorizations. To preserve the integrity of the study, by ensuring that only language used by elected federal officials was analyzed, the Congressional Register required three levels of search and identification of text for analysis. First, searching the Congressional Register for the appropriate year using the search terms “higher education,” “university,” and “college” rendered a significant number of results, some duplicated with each term. This required a

6 

A. L. PALMADESSA

cross-check of dates that appeared in one or more search to avoid duplicate analysis. Second, terms were isolated within each record to determine the use of the term to determine the relevance of the text. Use of terms in text not relevant to the study (see Table 1.1) resulted in exclusion from the analysis. Third, the records were checked to see when the three search terms were used, if they were used by federal officials in the meeting, or were attributed to reports or other items requested to be added to the register. These exclusions not only made the data set more manageable but also created parameters for the analysis, allowing for a more in-depth analysis across an extensive period of time. The parameters, or limits, provided a means to determine what data was relevant and intended for the HEA 1965, each reauthorization or amendment, and assured the use of the discourse was occurring in the congressional meetings verbally and recorded in the Record.

Analysis of Congressional Records The foundation of this study is the original act as it was created, debated, and enacted in Congress in 1965. The following data and description is focused on that one year to establish the methods and analytical framework of the study for each subsequent historical moment when the HEA 1965 was before Congress for reauthorization. In addition, in this essentially pilot of the full study, the themes were identified and the exclusions were practiced, supporting the validity of the methodological approach to this study. After isolating portions of the texts in the Congressional Record for the 107 days of debates relevant to the Higher Education Act of 1965, five macro-level themes emerged, each with two micro themes. The macro and micro themes are represented in Table 1.2 below. In the debates, equity and access were common themes of discussion, and each related to individuals. Equity regarding individuals who could or could not take advantage of higher education was discussed as either an issue of poverty or race. Poverty was a significantly larger point of consideration than race. However, the two are inextricably linked in the context of the US in 1965. First, combatting poverty was the main component of Johnson’s Great Society plan. This was a dovetail to the larger Civil Rights Movement, as being poor and being black were commonalities. Additionally, poor students were always excluded from higher education

1  INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 

7

Table 1.1  Exclusions from Analysis Source

Examples

From external sources

Newspaper articles, reports, Items included at request of members of letters, speeches Congress but not read aloud or given by members of Congress. Therefore, not discourse or text directly from the participants/policymakers. Letters, interviews, Included in record but not heard by speeches, stakeholders, Congress as a unit, only members of citizens’ remarks subcommittees and from nonelected leaders Previous debate materials Included in record but not read aloud; included in past records derived from previous or current members of Congress and not directly related to HEA 1965 but to other legislative actions Higher Education Facilities Although important in the recognition of Act need for legislation regarding higher education, previous legislation is not the topic of debate but is referenced as relevant. Actual text of past legislation is not relevant, only the mention as part of the message The Serviceman’s The actual bills and amendments offered Readjustment Act, Higher state the terms repeatedly but are the Education Facilities Act legislative text, not the arguments of the policymakers. The University of North The terms used in institutional titles and Carolina, Dean of the affiliation of individuals; these examples do College, Professor of not have bearing on the study History, The University of Michigan Higher Education Facilities Mentions of previous legislation including Act of 1963, and the the search terms that are not inherently Elementary and Secondary related to the HEA 1965. Rather, used to Education Act of 1965 support other actions such as ESEA 1965 Puerto Rice, Mexico, etc. Support for developing nations’ higher educational institutions or systems appears in the record but is not related to the debates regarding, or the language of, the HEA 1965

Testimony by nonelected individuals Reprints from previous debates Text of prior legislation

Use of term in legislation

Term used in titles or designations

Mentions of previous legislation Higher education in other nations

Rationale for exclusion

(continued)

8 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Table 1.1 (continued) Source

Examples

Rationale for exclusion

Institutional information

Reports regarding specific institutions’ or individuals’ accomplishments

Referral notes

Dates for testimony or appearance before a committee

Reports recognizing institutional programs, retirements or nominations, and/or celebrations are not relevant to the debate but appear in the record. Digests include subjects and bills under consideration. This lists dates and names, but no content regarding the debates or the text of the legislation

Table 1.2  Discursive themes, macro and micro Macro

Micro

Equity

Poverty—student, family income levels Race—nonwhite minority students For all who desire higher education but are not the top students For capable students who cannot afford higher education cost National welfare—benefit of individual likened to benefit of the nation National power—education as a tool for national identity Democratic idealism—representation of desired norms and values Preservation of democracy—historical reference and trends Support via other legislation—connection to other federal acts Recognition of importance—value and role of education in the US

Access

The Nation

Democracy

Pro-Education

due to cost, if there was no other program to help them gain admission, such as the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill 1944) or the National Defense Education Act (NDEA 1958). Race, as a standalone barrier to equity was not as prominent in debates, but was noted sparingly and most often was folded into the poverty category. Access to higher education, particularly public higher educational institutions at the two- or four-year level, was reserved not only for those who were capable but also for those who could afford it. When debates

1  INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 

9

concerned making higher education accessible for those who wanted or were capable, the discourse was reflective of equity issues but focused on students who fit into one of two categories: those who wanted to go to college but had barriers including not being at the top of their high school classes or those who were capable, high-achieving students but were poor. Finding a way to help those who desired higher education or who were promising and capable future graduates was a key component in the debates. The nation, democracy, and the pro-education stance were themes relevant to society at large, or to institutions, above individuals. When the benefits of higher education related to the nation as a single entity were presented, discourse represented the implications for national welfare and national power. These micro themes are related in that they both support the strength and success of the nation, but one reaches all levels of national interest, whereas the other focuses upon the federal government and the US’s position among nations. The national welfare category aims to exemplify how higher education can benefit every strata of society, from individual contributions to the nation to the nation’s success as a result, recycling back to the individual. National power is rather self-­explanatory— this is how higher education helps the nation maintain its position as world leader through an educated populace that contributes to knowledge for defense and prosperity. Democracy, although closely aligned with the nation’s identity, is a separate theme as this discursive strategy embodies perceived democratic idealism and the means to preserve democratic institutions and way of life. Discourse employed to exhibit democratic idealism in relation to higher education focused upon values and norms that represent the democratic nation-state synonymous with the United States. This ideal representation alternates between the involvement of individuals in a democratic society and the functions of the federal government. Higher education’s role in preserving democracy was positioned in the debates when references to the founding fathers, the US Constitution, historical moments or events, and the juxtaposition against opposing ideologies were made as reasons to support higher education legislation. The pro-education discourse in congressional debates connected federal legislation to institutions, and the federal legislation to the individual receiving education. This was evidenced by debates that positioned other federal education legislation, or legislation that impacted, sometimes indirectly, public education as a means to support the provisions of the HEA

10 

A. L. PALMADESSA

1965. This pro-education via other legislation discourse also further legitimated prior federal actions regarding education. In addition, education as a positive aspect of the US as a nation and a people was noted throughout and connected directly to President Johnson’s Great Society agenda. Managing analysis of this magnitude of qualitative data was a challenge. To compile the discourses into a workable body of data, each text segment was color coded (five colors representing the five themes) and then noted as one of the two micro themes. Once identified in each of the 107 days of data for the 1965 debates, the pilot and first iteration of the study, segments that correlated to one of the five themes were taken at one time and analyzed across the 107 days. This was repeated for each of the five macro themes, and then repeated for the two micro themes within each of the five sets, 107 times each, or the total instances identified. It is important to note that not all five macro or ten micro themes were present in each day analyzed; however, all 107 days contained relevant data that were analyzed and coded into the appropriate category. As presented in Chap. 3, analysis of the initial legislation provided the foundation of the study; each time a reauthorization was due before Congress, the same analytical process was executed. The process of isolating text within the congressional record, and elimination criteria, was repeated for each year the HEA was reauthorized or amended, as well as when legislative actions relevant to, or directly impacting, the HEA were on the debate floor. The total number of days for each year’s relevant data, after application of exclusions, is represented in Table 1.3:

Table 1.3  Relevant days of congressional debate in successful HEA reauthorization years

Legislation/Reauthorization year Total days of debate 1965 1968 1972 1976 1980 1986 1992 1998 2008

107  91  96  77  77  58  74  52  89

1  INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 

11

This data set is cumbersome, even after exclusions, but with such breadth of debate in varied historical contexts, the importance of considering this legislation as a genealogical process is validated. Each historical moment when the HEA was before Congress, policymakers wielded their power through discursive strategies that crafted a policy that not only has a direct impact on individual students and institutions but also alters the landscape of higher education with each change, for better or for worse. In each reauthorization or relevant policy agenda item’s debates, the same macro and micro themes were found in the policymakers’ discourse— equity (poverty, race), access (for those who cannot afford or those not at the top of the class), the nation (national welfare, national power), democracy (democratic idealism, preservation of democracy), and pro-education (support via other legislation, recognition of importance). In the following chapters, organized based upon historical moments when the HEA was debated in Congress, from 1965 to 2008, the discourse of policymakers is analyzed and presented in the thematic order listed and represented in Table 1.2. Chapter 2 considers how higher education came to the forefront of national policy debates in the postwar era. After a brief history of higher education in the US pre-1945, the evolution of the relationship between higher education and the federal government from the first major legislation relevant to colleges and universities, the Morrill Act of 1862, to the GI Bill of 1944 is traced to provide not only a foundation of the transition of national attention to higher education but also the establishment of the need for and support of government involvement. Next, the Truman Commission and the report, Higher Education for American Democracy, published in 1947, is positioned as the point at which the federal government became directly involved with institutions, down to the operational level, solidifying federal influence of the social institution. Higher education policies in the context of the Civil Rights Movement from 1945 to 1965, and the agendas set forth by presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, are then discussed. Lastly, an overview of literature regarding the Higher Education Act of 1965 is provided, setting the stage for the third chapter—the analysis of the congressional debates and the provisions of the HEA 1965. Chapter 3, Presidential Directives and Congressional Negotiations: The Higher Education Act of 1965, is the first analysis in this study. The context created by President Johnson’s Great Society Program and the War on Poverty is considered, and his request to place education at the forefront

12 

A. L. PALMADESSA

of his policy agenda is presented. Then, the analysis of debates in support and in opposition to the proposed legislation is completed, culminating in a victory for higher education access and Johnson’s effort to promote socioeconomic mobility through education. Chapters 4–7 follow a similar pattern, focusing on floor debates, presidential agendas, the resulting changes in the HEA, and how the new or amended provisions impact access to higher education. In the fourth chapter, the crises of the conflict in Vietnam, continued Cold War tensions, and continued racial violence in the US create a difficult context for presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Carter to promote higher education when protest and instability become synonymous with college campuses. Regardless of the volatile moments in history, the HEA was reauthorized in 1968, 1972, and 1976, and each iteration is analyzed in depth in Chap. 4. At the end of the Cold War, President Reagan was quite critical of education in the US, blaming inadequacies at all levels of education for national troubles. For the end of the Carter administration and throughout the Reagan era, education became a battlefield, and that is reflected in the reauthorization efforts and results in 1980 and 1986. Chapter 5 details the difficulties A Nation at Risk posed for higher education when the HEA was due before Congress. In Cha. 6, the neoliberal landscape of the 1990s that put significant influence on technology transfer and intellectual property claims situates the needs of and presidential agendas for higher education. The Act was reauthorized in 1992 and 1998, and not with profound impact on access; rather, the focus was supporting other, national economic ends such as workforce development and economic stimulus instead of providing individuals expanded opportunity to pursue higher education. Chapter 7 is the final reauthorization of the Higher Education Act under President Bush in 2008. The reauthorization was complete at the end of Bush’s term, positioning incoming President Obama with an opportunity to make higher education a priority. Obama’s American Graduation Initiative and America’s College Promise were born out of the need to increase access and encourage completion of postsecondary studies. Being the last reauthorization to date, Chap. 7 is the limit of the analysis. This does not mean that the work is done; higher education remained a focus of Obama’s second term and was a point of debate in the next two presidents’ agendas. The final chapter, Chap. 8, considers where higher education was placed on the policy agenda after Obama, in the Trump and Biden administrations. After Obama, education policy shifted broadly, efforts to

1  INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 

13

reauthorize the HEA were stalled, and Congress was granted extensions on the agenda item. Although legislation focused on other points of interest were before Congress, such as tax laws, were before Congress, the HEA did not make it to the floor for debate. Instead, it was extended to 2023, the year this study is completed. Thus, this final chapter not only discusses the shifts in policy from 2008 to 2023, but considers the status of HEA in this historical moment and offers suggestions for policymakers and advocates to consider as the most pressing needs in legislation intended to make access to higher education more equitable. Until higher education is accessible to all individuals who seek it, there will be insurmountable barriers for the most disadvantaged members of American society, which will only continue to hurt not only the society at large but also the nation’s status as a democratic leader.

References Britton, A.  D. (2013). The genealogy and governance of ‘A Curriculum for Excellence’. A case study in education policymaking in post-devolution Scotland. Dissertation University of Glasgow. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/4054/ Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge Press. Higher Education Act. (1965, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013). P.L. 89-329; P.L. 113-28 Hunkin, E. (2016). Deploying Foucauldian genealogy: Critiquing ‘quality’ reform in early childhood policy in Australia. Power and Education, 8(1), 35–53. Levinson, B.  A. U., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767–795. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. Sage Publications Ltd. Shukla, R. C. (2017). Public policy and social good: Theory, practice and beyond. Annales, Ethics in Economic Life, 20(4), 19–35. Stein, S. J. (2004). The culture of education policy. Teachers College Press.

CHAPTER 2

Establishing the Need for Higher Education Legislation, 1945 to 1965

Higher education was not always at the forefront of American politics. It took several hundred years for the necessity of collegiate education to present itself in the US, not only due to the transition away from British rule but also because a new socioeconomic structure was developed alongside the foundation of the new nation. The relationship between institutions of higher education and the nation-state was established in the colonial period but developed jointly as the nation was established, the need for colleges grew, and the institutions of government and education expanded jointly. From the early colonial period to the modern, post-World War II world, higher education developed and changed with the nation. In the American colonies, colleges were established to carry on English traditions and prepare the next generation of leaders to secure colonial success. These institutions were for the affluent sons of Englishmen—business and government leaders with ties to the crown. These institutions persisted through the colonial period to the early Republic and maintained their elite, selective status and position, even after the colonists declared war against the crown (Hutcheson, 2020). Once the Republic settled upon the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, it was time for states to assume the responsibility of establishing universities, codifying that right and duty in the state constitutions.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. L. Palmadessa, Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43706-9_2

15

16 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Some institutions founded during the colonial period did transition to public institutions after the break with England, but the establishment of public universities in the newly founded states became a priority. These new state institutions, such as the University of North Carolina and the University of Georgia, were founded to provide education modeled after Oxford and Cambridge for qualified men, not necessarily of English aristocratic blood. As these institutions grew into the nineteenth century, there were changes for higher education in the United States and in Europe. In the US, more private institutions, women’s colleges, and church-affiliated institutions were founded, diversifying the options for higher learning in the states. In Europe, the research institution model was established first in Germany, and then it spread to other industrial nations. The research model eventually took hold in the US, but not until after federal intervention and the end of the American Civil War (Geiger, 2016; Hutcheson, 2020; Palmadessa, 2017; Thelin, 2011).

The Federal Government’s Role in Higher Education Before 1945 It was not until the US was wrought with warfare in the 1860s that higher education became a topic of serious debate at the national level. Issues of land use, taxation, more people to educate, agricultural and technological needs, and national expansion brought higher education as a means to address national needs to the forefront (Palmadessa, 2017; Sorber, 2013). This culminated in the Morrill Acts, first as the Land-Grant Act of 1862, then the second iteration in 1890, which focused on educating a greater portion of the population. The first Morrill Act in 1862 focused on utilizing unused land to build or add to existing universities, to expand studies related to agricultural needs, add opportunities for education where secondary schools were lacking, and support states with fewer colleges and universities. The Second Morrill Act in 1890 aimed to support agricultural and mechanical arts and offer a means to educate the newly freed African American population, laying the groundwork for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. These legislative actions are the first instance of direct federal involvement in higher education as it was the first time funds were allocated and institutional purpose and curricula were specifically and carefully influenced by federal lawmakers. Ultimately, this was a move away from the traditional liberal education that was expected by those who had access

2  ESTABLISHING THE NEED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION, 1945… 

17

to higher education in the mid-nineteenth century toward a new focus on programs with specific utility—supporting the overall wealth of the nation (Hutcheson, 2020). The Morrill Acts were successful in founding more universities, modeled after the German research institution, and supported much needed technological growth in the US going into the twentieth century. As a result, Congress passed several acts that further supported funding for the land-grant institutions and their overall purpose. These actions not only supported the institutions already established but encouraged an increased focus on vocational education and supported the agricultural extension services. The added support and federal interest in higher education in the early twentieth century waned with the onset of the Great War (Natow, 2022). From 1914 to 1918, colleges and universities suffered from low enrollment as the military sought soldiers and the war effort required more workers. Thus, federal dollars were reallocated, and colleges became training grounds to support the war effort (Loss, 2012; Palmadessa, 2017; Thelin, 2011). During the 1920s and 1930s, the US was readjusting to life after the War to End All Wars and experienced an economic boom, and then the most devastating economic collapse in history. In the 1920s, there was a return to higher education, but the government was not involved in the enrollment growth. Institutions were adjusting to postwar needs, and there were institutional adjustments such as the addition of some student support services; however, this was not due to a request from the national level, but rather a natural response to student needs. However, when the economy came to a halt in October of 1929, attention would turn back to how colleges and universities could support the nation (Natow, 2022). The New Deal Programs crafted by President Roosevelt as a means to alleviate the Great Depression directly impacted higher education through works programs and the training needs of those employed (Palmadessa, 2017; Thelin, 2011). From 1933 to 1939, colleges and universities supported the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The CCC employed college-aged individuals and required vocational training; the WPA, an initiative with a very broad scope, included building projects on college campuses. Although institutions of higher learning were not targets of the New Deal, higher education was a necessary participant in the nation’s economic recovery (Natow, 2022). The transition to significant federal investment in higher education came with the onset of World War II. The need for innovative technology

18 

A. L. PALMADESSA

to face foes on two fronts, across two oceans, was immediately recognized. University laboratories housed some of the world’s greatest minds, and the nation needed their help. Thus, a very fruitful relationship based on research and development between universities and the federal government was established by funneling federal money into technological studies at institutions of higher learning. World War II also impacted higher education directly in the war years as fewer students could attend college due to war service, either at home or on the warfront. After the war, research and development and federal support for continued connections with university laboratories continued, and enrollment challenges were met with government incentives for individuals to return to college. The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill 1944) was created to help members of the armed service transition back to civilian life. There were several key benefits afforded by the GI Bill—housing support, financial aid for college—and access to higher education proved to be simultaneously beneficial and challenging. Providing veterans with college educations helped not only the individuals but the institutions that lost enrollment during the war. It also helped the nation recover from the devastation of war, but also had to adjust to the new world after such horrific acts were committed. Within just a few years of the war’s end, institutions were overwhelmed by the influx of students and the needs of veterans. This caused a crisis in higher education, and the federal government responded (Palmadessa, 2017; Thelin, 2011). The Truman Commission was formed in 1947 to study and address the crises of space and services in higher education, and it took on the role of curriculum advocate and financial consultant. The Commission’s report, Higher Education for American Democracy (1947), was crafted by the members of the Commission, appointed by Truman, and presented as a guide for federal involvement in and expectations for higher education in the postwar context. Although the report did not bear legal authority, it was part of Truman’s agenda to maintain superior status among nations and reinforce an idealized version of democracy that dominated US identity and perceptions. The idealized version of democracy was perpetuated not only through discourse but also through curricular adaptations and programmatic foci within institutions of higher learning (Palmadessa, 2023; Palmadessa, 2017). Thus, the Truman Commission established the relationship between the federal government and higher education at the operational level as recommendations and directives were drawn from this report, demonstrating a direct line of influence from the presidency to the

2  ESTABLISHING THE NEED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION, 1945… 

19

social institution (Palmadessa, 2017). This connection only grew as legislation regarding higher education increases after the success of the GI Bill in encouraging enrollment and the Truman Commission defining the purpose of higher education in the US as the undisputed world leader (Palmadessa, 2023). In an effort to sustain the position of world leader after World War II, the US had to continue technological advancement for defense and, arguably, peace. This commitment was tested in 1957, when Russian successfully launched the first satellite, Sputnik. Russia beating the US in the Space Race challenged American leadership and power, and that was not an acceptable loss for the US. The response to this loss was to bolster education with federal money, as education was blamed for this defeat. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA, 1958) concentrated on supported innovative technology and science education in classrooms, and funded more teacher education programs to ensure that teachers with appropriate training in the sciences were properly teaching the leaders and innovators of the future. Although the NDEA did in part accuse education as a reason for the loss to Russia, it did renew the interest of federal officials in supporting education as an important, invaluable means to maintain power (Palmadessa, 2019). Cold War challenges abroad plagued the US politics and occupied the federal government throughout the late 1940s, the 1950s, and the 1960s, but ideological foes abroad were only one source of strain on the nation. At home, the Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum, and education was not excluded from the fray, just as the technological and ideological needs of the nation were woven into the purpose of higher education. However, with the Civil Rights Movement and matters of equity and social justice, higher education became a battlefield for those who did and did not support the goals of the Movement, and became a site of contention for policymakers at all levels.

The Federal Government and Civil Rights After World War II The Civil Rights Movement and the effort to form a more perfect union with equality for the people of the United States established roots after World War II. After the world witnessed the evils of racial profiling and separation of people based on ethnicity and appearance, it became clear that if the leading Allied victor was to remain a beacon of power in the

20 

A. L. PALMADESSA

postwar world, the nation needed to emulate what it projected to the world. President Truman recognized the hypocrisy and was openly appalled by racial violence in the US. In 1946, two particular events caught the President’s attention and he felt compelled to act. There was a merciless killing of four black citizens and the murder of a black man who was a veteran of World War II and in uniform when attacked at a restroom stop in Georgia. After Truman heard of this violence, he was reported to exclaim, “We’ve got to do something!”(Goldfield, 2014, p. 23). Truman’s next action was the creation of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights, focused first upon the violence that plagued the nation, but also on larger, broader civil rights issues. The purpose of this committee was, according to Truman, to determine what rights the federal government could protect that would not infringe upon the states, and how far the power of the federal government extended to support the protection of equal rights. The resulting report of the commission stated that there was a significant discrepancy between what the US projected as an equal nation, full of opportunity, and the socioeconomic reality. President Truman made efforts to support civil rights from the federal and the personal level. In 1947, he spoke before the NAACP, the first US president to do so (Goldfield, 2014, pp.  21–25), and then in 1948, he formally ordered desegregation of the US armed forces. Truman’s successor, former General turned Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was well aware of the importance of the civil rights agenda, but had kept a quiet profile before winning the election in 1953. He continued the efforts of Truman to desegregate the military, in opposition to many military colleagues’ desires, and ordered schools on military bases to be integrated, before the Brown decision. Eisenhower’s ability to appoint five new Supreme Court Justices assisted in the civil rights victories of his two-term presidency including the Brown decision in 1954, delivered by Chief Justice Warren, an Eisenhower appointee. Eisenhower, much like his predecessor, was appalled by racial violence, and as a result of the murder of Emmett Till in 1955, he vowed in his 1956 State of the Union address to submit a civil rights bill to Congress in an effort to thwart the continued racist practices and violence that persisted even after landmark decisions such as Brown and federal commissions to contend with the issues of racial equality. In 1957, Eisenhower’s promise became a reality with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, “the first civil rights bill passed by Congress since 1875” (Goldfield, 2014, p.  29). Although the 1957 iteration required serious revision and ultimately

2  ESTABLISHING THE NEED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION, 1945… 

21

weakening of provisions, it was a landmark moment that demonstrated the capabilities of the federal government and the inability of deeply rooted racism to control the progress of the nation as a whole. Unfortunately, the same day the legislation passed Congress, violence in Little Rock, Arkansas, demonstrated that racism was still prominent is some regions, and states would fight to protect what they considered the appropriate social order. Much to the dismay of the Southern resistance, the march for equality continued with the 1960s sit-in movement and the boycotts of 1961. Eisenhower supported the grassroots movement and did not back down from his progressive stance, despite his Republican base. This determination led to the Civil Rights Act of 1960; this legislation was more effective than the 1957 version, as it further supported voting equality by allowing districts to have officials oversee polls to protect voters. This legislation was also a key moment for Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson as he stood squarely behind the civil rights legislation, even as his Texas base and Southern supporters questioned his allegiance to his roots (Goldfield, 2014). During Eisenhower’s two terms, young Congressman John F. Kennedy was rather quiet on civil rights matters as he focused predominantly on foreign policy (Goldfield, 2014). However, after the Brown decision and the violence in the Southern states, Kennedy quickly realized that if his political ambitions were to lead him to the White House, he had to have a civil rights agenda. Thus began Kennedy’s ascension as the civil rights politician, if for no other reason than to acquire the black vote and cross the democratic fissures of pro and cautiously supportive equal rights advocates in Congress (Hoover, 2018). This is where his party-based competition, Senator Lyndon Johnson, would be cast off the ballot in 1960 since he stood firmly behind Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act and supported the order of soldiers to Little Rock (Goldfield, 2014). Kennedy took the advice of black campaign staffers who suggested he directly seek black voters’ favor by campaigning in specific blocs and appointing prominent members of the Brown case to his advisory committee on civil rights (Hoover, 2018). His background stance on civil rights in his 14-year career as a Congressman allowed Kennedy to rise at just the right time, be positioned as more moderate than Johnson, and appear much more committed to civil rights than the Republican nominee, Richard Nixon. With Johnson as his running mate, Kennedy was able to carry the Southern vote, the Northern democratic vote, and the black vote (Goldfield, 2014).

22 

A. L. PALMADESSA

The Civil Rights Movement: Presidents Kennedy and Johnson President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon B. Johnson are synonymous with the efforts of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement in the United States. In each president’s quest to move the US society toward equality and equity, education was a central theme in their respective agendas. Following on the heels of the 1954 Brown decision and the fight to desegregate schools that bled well into the terms of these presidents, education was not only an ideal point of entry for Civil Rights efforts and legislation but was also in need of reform and assistance in the post-World War II, Cold War United States. This historical moment provided an opportunity for progressive presidents to include education at multiple levels at the forefront of their agendas, albeit not without challenge. As a result, the 88th and 89th Congresses are cemented in the nation’s history as the Education Congresses. President Kennedy’s first year in office was riddled with racial violence. From attacks on Freedom Riders in Alabama to Martin Luther King, Jr’s arrest, to mob riots after James Meredith’s admission to Ole Miss, Kennedy was challenged on his position regarding equal rights (Hoover, 2018). On 11 June 1963, after violence erupted in Alabama, Kennedy delivered a powerful speech, recommitting his focus to civil rights. He proclaimed, as he had in years past, that children should not be denied opportunities due to the color of their skin (Kennedy, 11 June 1963b). As evidenced by his address earlier that month, Kennedy supported a revision of the Civil Rights Act that would focus more broadly on discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, religious affiliation as well as voting rights and permanently settling the issue of segregation (Kennedy, 6 June 1963a; archives.org). Unfortunately, before the new amendments were debated and made actionable by Congress, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas on 22 November 1963. Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn into office, and the march toward civil rights gained momentum. Johnson’s first public address after taking the oath of office focused on carrying on the legacy of Kennedy (Goldfield, 2014) and his recommended amendments to the Civil Rights Act and the 1961 omnibus education bill that failed on the Congressional floor (Hoover, 2018). President Johnson was supportive of civil rights actions at the federal level but not specifically due to issues based upon race alone; instead,

2  ESTABLISHING THE NEED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION, 1945… 

23

Johnson focused on anti-poverty measures, which fold nicely into race issues, given the ample evidence of economic disparity between white and black Americans. This connection was recognized by previous Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. Johnson claimed that the war on poverty began with Lincoln, a war he intended to end (Goldfield, 2014; McAndrews, 2018; Pauley, 1998), as well as completing the efforts of Roosevelt’s New Deal (Goldfield, 2014). One of the most effective ways President Johnson could combat poverty and provide the people with a better life was through education. President Johnson focused on the omnibus education bill Kennedy put forward in 1961, as a way to not only support his anti-poverty agenda but continue the late president’s work. Kennedy’s education bill was an all-­ compassing proposal with 24 points that would position the federal government to be involved in public education and hopefully improve the nation’s educational system at every level. The depth of this proposal was too much for Congress to consider in 1961, but in honor of Kennedy and the desire for Congress and President Johnson to further Kennedy’s agenda and quest to support the American people, the legislation was reintroduced in multiple bills as part of Johnson’s agenda to create a Great Society. The Great Society was situated as the means to end poverty in the United States; Johnson’s policy agenda was undergirded by this goal, and each legislative action he supported was meant to bring the nation closer to this goal. Much like his predecessor, the first years of his presidency were riddled with domestic violence, all in response to gains in the Civil Rights Movement or in protest of the conflict in Vietnam. Distinct from Kennedy’s presidency, Johnson was able to move legislation through Congress to support his agenda—legislation specific to the challenges in American society that perpetuated inequities that the government could address under the federal umbrella (Hoover, 2018; Simon-­ McWilliams, 2007). The first major legislation ratified as an honor to President Kennedy under Johnson’s leadership was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA, 1964). This was the legislation Kennedy implored the United States Congress to take into consideration as he vowed to provide equal opportunity to all American people, regardless of race or sex. The resulting CRA 1964 was an incredible victory in the quest for equality as it prohibited discrimination based on race or sex and forced the integration of public schools and spaces (archives.org). This was followed one month later with the signing

24 

A. L. PALMADESSA

of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (EOA, 1964). This legislation directly addressed a key component of the issue of poverty in the US and gained wide support from Johnson’s base, as poverty and help for the disadvantaged was understood and appreciated by his constituents. It is the EOA 1964 that positioned President Johnson to declare a “War on Poverty,” although it did not come without challenge from some organizations noted for service to the poor, mainly religious institutions that feared a potential challenge to the First Amendment; however when considered as a meaningful cause, there was no contest (McAndrews. 2014, p. 300). The purpose of the EOA 1964 was to provide opportunities for people with little means to be gainfully employed, better themselves through healthcare, education, and training. The EOA 1964 gave individuals the chance to participate in American society to the extent of their potential, contributing to the overall welfare of society (PL 88-452, 1964). The CRA 1964 and EOA 1964, although landmark achievements in the quest for equality, were not enough to combat the deeply embedded racism and willful separation based on race in the US.  Shortly after the CRA 1964 and the EOA 1964 were passed, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA, 1965) was signed into law, guaranteeing enfranchisement of all Americans, regardless of race. This act was passed after the tragic events in Selma, Alabama, when voter registration drives by black activists throughout the Southern US sparked violent response from those who opposed the CRA 1964. On 7 March 1965, activist John Lewis led 600 people on a march for equality in Selma to support voting rights, an event that ended in violence and is marked by history as Bloody Sunday (senate.gov). President Johnson immediately addressed the tragedy through federal support in Selma, but also brought his Voting Rights Bill to the American public, and asked Congress to act quickly (Johnson, 13 March 1965). In a special message to the nation on 15 March 1965, Johnson called upon the American people to remember the painful history of establishing the United States and the bloodshed to provide freedom for the people of the nation. He referenced the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the foundation of freedom and reminded the audience that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed freedom, regardless of race (Pauley, 1998). His appeal to the public and their representatives was heard, and the VRA 1965 was signed into law on August 6. To ensure the VRA 1965 met the need, the legislation also stipulated protective or enforcement measures. Given the degree of violence experienced

2  ESTABLISHING THE NEED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION, 1945… 

25

by black Americans in the early and mid-1960s, provisions for enforcement were necessary for the legislation to be effective. In October of 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA, 1965) was added to the list of early victories in the quest to build a Great Society. Although the act was challenged in Congress, and immigration was not at the top of Johnson’s agenda, the act did completely alter the cultural landscape of the nation by combatting previous immigration and eugenics-based nationalist policies (Tichenor, 2016). The INA 1965 passed at a contentious point in the Cold War, given the conflict in Southeast Asia, but it was a relief to its supporters as a means to rectify racist policies of the past and eliminate ethnic imbalances among immigrant populations (history.house.gov). Johnson’s symbolic signing of the law was staged at the base of the Statue of Liberty as a means to remind the nation that anyone who seeks liberty is welcome in the United States (Tichenor, 2016). Liberty cannot exist if the nation’s people are not educated; this was not a new concept, as the notion that “a nation cannot be both ignorant and free” was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in the early days of the Republic. As noted, Kennedy began the quest for education as a means to improve the lives of all children in the US, regardless of where they live or the color of their skin. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, 1965) was the first legislative action under Johnson to pull from Kennedy’s failed 1961 omnibus bill. In the original bill, higher education was included as part of the nation’s educational system in need of federal support. This portion of the first iteration was a contentious point, especially coming on the heels of the CRA 1964, which did involve universities and student activities on campus, and the EOA that included work study programs. Thus, higher education was removed from the ESEA 1965, reducing the 24 points suggested by Kennedy to 20 points, and, eventually, successfully passing the legislation (26 August 1965, Congressional Record). The result was a means to infuse federal money into buildings, teacher education, classroom supplies and textbooks, and the ability to focus on bringing rural and underprivileged communities’ schools to modern standards. Although the ESEA 1965 is rooted in Kennedy’s agenda, scholars are divided as to whether or not this contentious legislation that altered the relationship between the federal government and k-12 education forever was a result of the circumstances of the time, or ingenuity by the new administration (Casalaspi, 2017). Regardless, after months of heated

26 

A. L. PALMADESSA

debate as to whether this was a constitutionally legitimate endeavor or an overstep of Congress, the federal government gained a permanent role in the function and funding of public education in the US in 1965.

Federal Attention to Higher Education, 1945 to 1965 After the war and the influx of students to colleges and universities, President Truman called for an evaluation of higher education’s role in the new world and established the Truman Commission on Higher Education. The charge given to this commission was to assess the needs of the institutions to meet the demand, to advise on curricular matters in the postwar context, and to address the needs of the new student population. The resulting report, Higher Education for American Democracy, was a six-­ volume report addressing the facilities, financial, and curricular needs of institutions, and gave guidance on how to best support more students and potential needs of the veteran population. Although this report did not carry the authority of policy, it influenced the future of higher education in the US—the goals, the purpose, and the connection between the nation-state and higher education (Palmadessa, 2017). The interest of the federal government in curricular matters was thrust into the forefront in 1958 after Russia’s successful launch of Sputnik. The Russian victory in the Space Race was a major loss for the US, scientifically and politically. As such, blame was placed on education as leaders argued that US schools failed to prepare the best scientists and that ineptitude led to the Russians having an upper hand in the race to be the most technologically advanced nation. Thus, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA, 1958) to support education in the sciences and math, with the goal of producing more scientists and advanced technology. This required increased funding for teacher education, classrooms, and labs and support at all levels of education in the fields of science and math. Training future scientists and funding laboratories were argued as the key to preserving national defense and countering Russian advances (Palmadessa, 2019). The advances in technology after the NDEA were put to use in the conflict in Vietnam in the early 1960s, supporting the rationale for the legislation. With new technologies, more students focused on scientific study, and higher education facilities became a point of concern for the national agenda. Congress passed the Higher Education Facilities Act of

2  ESTABLISHING THE NEED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION, 1945… 

27

1963 (HEFA, 1963) to appropriate funds to construct new academic buildings, renovate older buildings, and improve the facilities used for academic purposes. If the nation expected students to lead in any field, the facilities needed to adequately accommodate educational expectations and needs. This legislation was directed to public institutions for the betterment of campuses and their services. This would prove to be an important step in meeting the needs of students in the mid- to late-1960s, as there was another potential wave of enrollment on the horizon.

The Higher Education Act of 1965 With increased enrollment in higher education in the US due to the baby boom generation coming of age and the technological gains of the late 1950s, the desire and the need for higher education coalesced. More students from varied backgrounds needed access to higher education to fulfill Johnson’s Great Society. Institutions needed financial support to meet enrollment demands, just as imperative as in the postwar era, and to support research and development in the post-Sputnik Cold War. For the national interest, educating more people supported national goals, identity, and power, as the educated class would lead the nation and support US dominance (Palmadessa, 2017). This did not come without challenges, as how to best support national needs, students, and the institutions was debated (Geiger, 2005; Thelin, 2011). As the Cold War progressed and the nation wrestled with inequalities and inequities in the leading nation’s society, contesting perhaps the notable position of world leader, Johnson’s Great Society plans were an attempt to close those gaps (Cofer & Somers, 2001). Education at all levels was an important means to this end and resulted in two major acts: the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, 1965) and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA, 1965) (Casalaspi, 2017; Palmadessa, 2017). Each of these acts were born out of Kennedy’s failed legislation, but they were also the culmination of previous higher education legislation that met some, but not nearly all, of the needs for colleges, universities, and their students. The Higher Education Act of 1965 is lauded as falling in line with the most significant federal higher education legislative actions following the Morrill Act of 1862 (PL 97-98) and the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, or GI Bill, of 1944 (38 U.S.C. §§ 3451-4393, 38 C.F.R. 21.1020). The funding structures of these acts were opposites; the Morrill Act provided indirect

28 

A. L. PALMADESSA

support to students as the money was earmarked to create institutions and the GI Bill was a direct payment to students for living expenses coupled with tuition payments directly to the colleges (Cofer & Somers, 2001). The HEA 1965 was an effort to give poor, talented students access to higher education. To do this, the HEA 1965 pulled pieces of actions from previous legislation intended to support higher education but not the students directly. For example, the loan programs from the NDEA 1958 and the work study programs included in the EOA 1964 were revised and incorporated into the HEA 1965 (Madus et al., 2012; Cofer & Somers, 2001). This act became the “cornerstone of federal financial aid policy” to deserving students and, in doing so, wed “competing ideologies for federal funding of higher education” by compromising between the desire to send funds directly to institutions based on student enrollment, direct funding to students via grants to the poorest students, and subsidized loans to middle-income families (Cofer & Somers, 2001, pp.  57–58). Providing funds directly to students allowed students to not only gain access but to have choice in what institution they attended. Ultimately, the “primary objective was one of equalizing educational opportunity for disadvantaged students by providing equal access to higher education for all students” (Cofer & Somers, 2001, p. 58). Therefore, HEA 1965 is “arguably the boldest step that the federal government had taken into the realm of higher education” (Madus et al., 2012, pp. 33–34). This does not mean that the HEA 1965 did not come with criticism, challenge, and contest. The debates were fierce, and the points made by policymakers were rooted in past concerns. The role of the federal government in education, tax law, and what the purpose of such legislation would mean for the nation as a whole and the individuals that would be impacted was all debated once again. Ultimately, the HEA 1965 is overwhelmingly considered an important step toward equitable opportunities in higher education. However, the debates around and the resulting action items in the seven provisions set forth in the HEA 1965 were not without flaws— either in conception or in execution. This study begins with the implications of the policy debates within the two houses of Congress, how discursive practices from the president and colleagues shaped the policy, how hegemonic codes of power and privilege are represented in the discourse, and how the policy’s ideological goals are represented in the final legislation in 1965. Then, analysis of each reauthorization and amendment to the original legislation and congressional debates concerning the act each time it is due are considered using the same methodological approach. Supporting legislation, or legislative

2  ESTABLISHING THE NEED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION, 1945… 

29

actions relevant to the HEA at any point of reauthorization (such as tax reforms, related higher education policy), is also considered as contextually relevant and inseparable from more specific, dedicated reauthorizations.

References Casalaspi, D. (2017). The making of a “Legislative Miracle”: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. History of Education Quarterly, 57(2), 247–277. Civil Rights Act (1964). (P. L. 88–352). https://www.archives.gov/milestonedocuments/civil rights-ac Cofer, J., & Somers, P. (2001). What influences student persistence at two-year colleges? Community College Review, 29(3), 56–76. Congressional Record. (1965, August 26). https://www.congress.gov/bound-­ congressional-­record/1965/08/26 Economic Opportunity Act. (1964). (P.L. 88-452). https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/STATUTE-­78/pdf/STATUTE-­78-­Pg508.pdf Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (1965). P.L. 89-10. Geiger, R.  L. (2005). The ten generations of American higher education. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. A. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed., pp. 38–70). The Johns Hopkins University Press. Geiger, R. L. (2016). American higher education since World War II: A history. Princeton University Press. Goldfield, D. (2014). Border men: Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson and Civil Rights. The Journal of Southern History, 80(1), 7–38. Higher Education Act. (1965, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013). P.L. 89-329; P.L. 113-28 Higher Education Facilities Act. (1963). P.L. 88-204; 77 Stat. 363 Hoover, M. (2018). Public promise and lost opportunity: Kennedy and Civil Rights. Race, Gender & Class, 25(1/2), 48–63. Hutcheson, P.  A. (2020). A people’s history of American higher education. Routledge Press. Immigration and Nationality Act. (1965). (P. L. 89-236). https://history.house. gov/Historical-­Highlights/1951-­2000/Immigration-­and-­Nationality-­Act-­ of-­1965/ Johnson, L. B. (1965, March 13). President’s news conference. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-­presidents-­news-­conference-­1028 Kennedy, J. F. (1963a, June 6). Televised address to the nation. Retrieved from the JFK Presidential Library and Museum at https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/ about-­jfk/historic-­speeches/televised-­address-­to-­the-­nation-­on-­civil-­rights

30 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Kennedy, J.  F. (1963b, June 11). Radio and television report to the American People on Civil Rights. Retrieved from The American Presidency Project website at https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/radio-­and-­television-­ report-­the-­american-­people-­civil-­rights Loss, C. P. (2012). Between citizens and the state: The politics of American higher education in the 20th century. Princeton University Press. Madus, J.  W., Kowitt, J.  S., & Lalor, A.  R. (2012). The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Impact on students with disabilities. Rehabilitation Education, 26(1), 33–42. McAndrews, L. J. (2018). Promoting the poor: Catholic leaders and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The Catholic Historical Review, 104(2), 298–321. National Defense Education Act. (1958). P.L. 85-864; 72 Stat. 1580. Natow, R. S. (2022). Reexamining the federal role in higher education: Politics and policymaking in the postsecondary sector. Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Palmadessa, A.  L. (2017). American national identity, policy paradigms, and higher education: A history of the relationship between higher education and the United States, 1862–2015. Palgrave Macmillan. Palmadessa, A. L. (2019). Saving democracy or responding to fear? National expectations for schools in the Cold War, 1946–1991. In A. L. Palmadessa, Ed. Cold War: Global impact and lessons learned. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Palmadessa, A. L. (2023). American Superiority, Democratic Idealism, and the Truman Commission: A Critical Discourse Historical Analysis of Higher Education for American Democracy. Peabody Journal of Education, 98(3), 284–300. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10. 1080/0161956X.2023.2216080 Pauley, G. E. (1998). Rhetoric and timeliness: An analysis of Lyndon B. Johnson’s voting rights address. Western Journal of Communication, 62(1), 26–53. Serviceman’s Readjustment Act. (1944). PL 346 Ch. 268 S. 1767. Simon-McWilliams, E. (2007). Federal support for educational research and development: The history of research and development centers and regional educational laboratories. The Journal of Negro Education, 76(3), 391–402. Sorber, N. M. (2013). Creating colleges of science, industry, and national advancement: The origins of the New England land-grant colleges. In R. L. Geiger & N.  M. Sorber, Eds. The land-grant colleges and the reshaping of American higher education: Perspectives on the history of higher education, volume thirty. : Transaction Publishers. Thelin, J.  R. (2011). A history of American higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press. Tichenor, D. (2016). Lyndon Johnson’s ambivalent reform: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 46(2), 691–705. Voting Rights Act of 1965. (P.L. 89-110). https://naacp.org/find-­resources/ history-­explained/legislative-­milestones/voting-­rights-­act-­1965

CHAPTER 3

Presidential Directives and Congressional Negotiations: The Higher Education Act of 1965

Lyndon B. Johnson was born into poverty and understood the difficulties that presented not only young people with aspirations for higher education but for anyone who was in a disadvantaged position, preventing the achievement of the American dream. With this sympathy for the poor and oppressed, once in the Oval Office, he considered himself to be a leader for all people, not just the white Southern and liberal supporters. When Johnson took office immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, he was quick to support the late president’s civil rights agenda and sought to further Kennedy’s efforts to make the nation more equitable for all. Johnson, in 1964, announced his plan to create a Great Society, one to be experienced by all individuals and not just those with opportunity; in other words, liberty for literally all people, regardless of socioeconomic status, race, or gender. Under the umbrella of the Great Society, Johnson declared a War on Poverty and presented policies that supported civil rights, healthcare, education, consumer protections, environmental measures, and basic needs, among other initiatives to fight this war. Each proposed action targeted a challenge that kept individuals from enjoying the freedoms and opportunities synonymous with the United States. If these opportunities were withheld due to race or income, Johnson argued that the nation failed its people, and it was the duty of the president and Congress to rectify that

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. L. Palmadessa, Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43706-9_3

31

32 

A. L. PALMADESSA

injustice. This injustice could be addressed, at least in part, by federal aid to education at all levels, including higher education (Baptiste et al., 2004). Kennedy’s civil rights agenda undoubtedly provided a foundation for Johnson’s Great Society vision, and the inclusion of higher education in that agenda. Even after Kennedy’s education omnibus fell short amid challenges regarding school desegregation, his legacy proved sufficient for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA, 1964) to pass under Johnson. This victory, in Kennedy’s honor, solidified Johnson’s quest to be the president for all people. The CRA 1964 enforced integration of schools and prohibited discrimination based on race. Next, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (EOA, 1964) provided education, healthcare, and training for people seeking gainful employment, but faced poverty-caused barriers. And finally, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA 1965) enfranchised all Americans, eliminating the remaining legal means of discrimination based on race. Now, all that remained was guaranteeing that every American had access to attain the education level they wanted, regardless of financial ability to pay for postsecondary education. Once Johnson claimed victory for federal support in k-12 education with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, 1965), the climate was set for higher education to rise to the top of the president’s agenda. What culminated in the Higher Education Act of 1965 was a concept put forth by President Johnson in an address on 12 January 1965. He told Congress that higher education could no longer be considered “a luxury, but a necessity” (Johnson, 12 January 1965). The United States was placed on notice after the Russian victory in the Space Race in 1958. The Eisenhower administration responded with the NDEA 1958, and now it was Johnson’s turn to position higher education to respond in a time of crisis. At this point in the early 1960s, the ugly truth of inequality in the United States was unveiled, and the world took notice. This was not only a domestic issue embodied by the Civil Rights Movement but was a testament to the US’s position among nations as it claimed to support democratic idealism abroad as a rationale for the continued support and losses incurred in the conflict in Vietnam. Congress overwhelmingly supported the goals of the Great Society Program and heeded Johnson’s request to make higher education a priority for the policymakers. Both houses took action with Senator Morse and Representative Green, both of Oregon, presenting their respective bills to Congress that same month. These bills were submitted on the heels of the ESEA 1965, and in the context of other anti-poverty legislation. The

3  PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES AND CONGRESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS… 

33

timing was crucial, making the context ripe for more education legislation to be debated before the 89th Congress.

Equity Combatting poverty was at the heart of the Great Society agenda, and was the foremost rationale for the HEA 1965. Poverty, indeed, has a racial component, but race was a standalone challenge in the 1960s, as evidenced by the Civil Rights Movement, relevant legislation, and the violence that erupted while the HEA 1965 was being debated in Congress. Couched in discourse of equity by elimination of barriers to equitable means and opportunity, the supporting members of Congress were able to persuade the opposition to understand the value of equitable opportunity to pursue further education. President Johnson set the standard for equity when he sent Congress a special letter, read aloud to Congress by one of his secretaries, titled “Full Educational Opportunity—Message from the President” (H. DOC. NO. 45) (12 January 1965, p. 508). In this letter, Johnson proposed “that we [the federal government] declare a national goal of full educational opportunity” as a means to combat poverty, as he argued, “[p]overty has many roots but the tap-root is ignorance” (p. 508-509). This ignorance, he argued, could be eliminated by providing the opportunity of higher education to low-income families whose children otherwise would not consider furthering their education. His proposal in the letter called for a system of scholarships reserved for students with the greatest need and potential to succeed in college. Johnson cited, “Each year an estimated 100,000 young people of demonstrated ability fail to go on to college because of lack of money…Only one out of three young people from low-­income families attend college compared with four out of five from high-­income families” (Johnson, 12 January 1965, p. 510). The statistics and goals of Johnson’s higher education plans were reinforced throughout the month’s debates. In most cases, he was referenced by members of Congress speaking in favor of the bill. On 15 January, Senator Greuning added, “[t]he education program proposed by the President is designed to make available to all children, regardless of environment or parental income, the opportunity to learn” (p. 756), hinting that there was more to equal opportunity than the challenge of poverty. Also woven into the proposals in the larger education agenda was the goal of creating a separate office of education, outside of the larger Health,

34 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Education, and Welfare Office. The rationale was to ensure all educational funds proposed in the package of legislation before this Congress would be appropriately distributed by an office, and an individual, dedicated solely to the purpose of education. Given anti-poverty measures such as the work-study program, originally established under the EOA 1964, it was argued as a necessary change to administer the specific programs (Senator Hartke, 19 January 1965, pp. 910–911). In March, at the height of the ESEA debates, the consideration of race was brought to the forefront of policymakers’ arguments. After the tragedy in Selma, Alabama, many congressional members made statements abhorring the violence and supporting the civil rights efforts of President Johnson. The goals for equity and equality of the Civil Rights Movement were embedded in the pro-education legislation arguments, but not blatantly stated. In other words, there was not a time when a member of Congress stood up and said, this is a matter of race. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson noted that American children should not be denied educational opportunities based on the color of their skin or their economic status. Regardless of how open the presidents were in their support of eliminating color lines, Congress maintained the position of equitable opportunity through economic support, not social change. In fact, the complete opposite was presented on 25 March 1965 when Representative Smith addressed the House, opposing federal involvement at any level of education. His position on race and equity was clear when he presented the following to his colleagues in the floor debate: You know, this bill got its steam out of the hysteria that is going on now relative to the minority race. They are the ones they say need education in order to put them on a basis of first-class citizenship. They, unfortunately, in great numbers, have been born and raised in poverty, necessary poverty, in the Southern States. Now we see great armies of well-meaning people who want to help those folks. We see them marching as Sherman’s army marched to the sea 100 years ago. I wonder what their real purposes are? I wonder why ministers of the gospel should desert their flocks and go tramping through the mud on the second Sherman march through the South…I hope that we will get down to pure reason as to what you are about to put on the country, because you are not doing the things it was advertised we were setting out to do. Unless we do, we will not help very much those people about whom the tears are being shed in the mud in the great march through Alabama. (pp. 5729–5730)

3  PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES AND CONGRESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS… 

35

The blatant racism exhibited by the representative from Virginia was not directly countered. However, the issue of equity with a reference to the South and the high poverty rate among minority groups was lightly touched upon later that day by Representative Halpern from New York when he stated, “We can no longer afford to shirk this prime responsibility because of trivial argument or secondary considerations…The long-term answer to cyclical poverty and regional depression must rest with coming generations. To widen access to better education is indispensable in addressing this acute national problem” (24 March 1965, p. 5761). Later in the same session, Representative Minish stated that “It is obvious that programs dealing with poverty, education, and race relations are all overlapping and interlocked” (p.  5766). These programs had to be implemented and properly executed if the nation was to move toward a more equitable society. Once the Office of Education was confirmed, partly due to the ESEA 1965 being signed into law on 9 April, the focus of debates shifted to making the goals of the proposed HEA 1965 a reality. Representatives and senators used the victories of the ESEA 1965 and the establishment of a dedicated Office of Education to support their argument for the HEA 1965. On 2 June 1965, Representative Pelly addressed members of the House in a statement titled, “Help America by Helping Americans Get a Better Education” (p.  12360). He argued, “[i]f we really want a Great Society and to banish crime and poverty, there is really only one long-­ range solution to cure these domestic problems of our time, and that is education…Congress has an obligation, in the interest of the general welfare, to keep the doors of learning open and available to qualified students of low-income families” (Pelly, 2 June 1965, p. 12360). At the surface, this is a pro-legislation position; however, in this statement, Representative Pelly is proclaiming that poverty is the root of crime and “domestic problems,” i.e., the challenges at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement. In this statement, he also suggested that a tax relief program replace the scholarship program in the HEA 1965, a program inherently flawed, as it did not consider individuals at the below taxable income level. In July, another obfuscated reason for making the opportunity for higher education more equitable is the economic gains for individuals and the national economy. Representative Sickles clearly indicated this reason to support the provisions of the HEA 1965 when he stated: Historically, the trend of higher education in America has been to encourage more and more young people from lower and middle income families to

36 

A. L. PALMADESSA

attend college…I think it is in the best interest (sic.) of… the Nation to increase the public investment in higher education to help keep costs down and maintain a climate which will enable every student with academic ability to secure a college education. In calling for this increased public support in terms of dollars and cents, I think we must not overlook the fact…that brainpower brings industry. Economists estimate a return in terms of economic growth, of from 9 to 15 percent on the money we invest in education. Also, there is no room at the bottom in our complex technical society today and we must have increased public support for the cost of education, or eventually pay the social and economic costs of an uneducated people. (1 July 1965, p. 15539)

The cycle of poverty and education as a means to break the cycle was at the forefront of the discourse of equity. Since this discourse was already present in Johnson’s Great Society agenda and previous legislative debates, it was not new, but it was positioned to influence the perceptions of those who opposed the federal government directly influencing public education. The discursive practices surrounding poverty are significant in these debates, as poverty is linked to crime, ignorance, failures, violence, and a threat to the United States. Embedding the discourse of poverty and equity into the debate for or against the HEA 1965 is evidence of the deeply rooted hegemonic codes surrounding poverty and the limitations of the American dream.

Access The challenge to access was understood by members of Congress to be directly connected to rising costs of college. However, this barrier was considered to hinder access for students who desired higher education but decided not to assume the debt, or for students whose income, or family income, was not sufficient to either secure a loan or consider higher education an option. In addition, there were students who entered college but left due to debt, or there were students who were not admitted to the school of their choice, making the decision to avoid the high cost of a college education. Consistent with his message regarding the role of higher education in the larger civil rights goals of equity, President Johnson considered access to educational opportunities for deserving and willing students to be a

3  PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES AND CONGRESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS… 

37

foremost concern of the federal government (12 January 1965, pp.  508–509). This message resounded in debates, clearly positioning access as a key rationale for education to have a renewed relationship with the federal government. Representative Albert echoed the President’s call for “a massive assault on ignorance. All Americans should know why his cornerstone for the building of a Great Society, why his master battle plan of the war against poverty, is the creation of full educational opportunity” (12 January 1965, p. 595). This, Rep Albert argued the same day, defined the nation as “more than the land of the free. It is equally the land of opportunity. Today, more than ever, freedom and opportunity are the creation and children of education” (p. 595). On 1 February 1965, the Higher Education Act was introduced to the House floor as a means to “advance in the direction of full educational opportunity at the college level for qualified young Americans. By helping able but needy students…it will mean wider educational horizons for today’s students—the leaders of tomorrow” (Rep. Brandemas, p. 1644). Interestingly, this coincided with the anniversary of the Greensboro Sit-­ Ins, led by four college students at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. Coincidence or intentional, making connections between civil rights and higher education on this anniversary added to public understanding of the need, not to mention a demonstration of leadership from the college student population. These leaders of tomorrow were also positioned as a means to fill gaps in governmental agencies through “the work-study program in S. 600…will not only help talented but needy college students gain an education for themselves; it will also permit our municipal and county governments to do many tasks they cannot now afford to have done” (Sen. Randolph, 7 April 1965, p. 7288). In response to increasing momentum in the Civil Rights Movement and the tragedies in Selma in March of 1965, access to higher education became a point of discussion and a means to address the opportunity gap in the US. Representative Powell noted the important connection between access for the many and the success of all: Every aspect of our American life demands more and better education if we are to keep pace with the rapidly changing conditions of our society. We can no longer be satisfied with Federal participation concentrated upon the selected few who enter our institutions of higher learning. We are compelled to give our most sincere and dedicated attention to the masses of our American youth, youth whose futures are bright with promise, youth who

38 

A. L. PALMADESSA

give America new visions and new goals. We must not wait any longer—it is later than you think…we cannot delay—the hour is far spent. (24 March 1965, p. 5733)

The barriers to access for the students of middle- and low-income backgrounds were well documented throughout the debates, starting with Johnson’s January letter to Congress. The cost to attend college was the clear barrier from a macro-perspective, and was outlined by Senator Prouty in May of 1965 in a last-minute effort to thwart the scholarship model of the HEA 1965. Although the position opposes the majority, he clearly lists the six identified barriers: sheer number of college-aged students in the US due to the baby boom, more students seeking higher education than any other period of history, increases in college tuition every year, potential students do not apply due to known costs, those who enter college cannot afford to stay enrolled, and, last, the lack of variety of monetary assistance for needy students. Thus, he argued, for access to be granted, there had to be more means for access and breaking the financial barriers. This was not a new concept but a widely supported effort to renegotiate tax laws and allow private funders to become involved in, and gain from, the quest for more access (24 May 1965, p. 11348). Representative Quie alternatively positioned these same six points as the rationale in favor of the HEA 1965 in June. He addressed the challenges of cost and affordability as a barrier to access for capable and willing students when he stated: All of this raises the poignant question as to whether or not some effort should be made through Federal assistance to keep the doors of learning open to low-income qualified students. Or should these doors be permitted to slam shut in the faces of these students in the winds of high tuition costs? In order to justify the application of Federal assistance in this area, it has to demonstrated that higher educational programs are in the national interest—and there is cogent evidence to show that they are…This population growth could become a critical factor in American life, for as the number of citizens increases in our Nation, the imperative demand for jobs, skills, and subsistence increases. The principal problem is to keep these factors in balance. But it must not be mistakenly assumed that the achievement of such equilibrium is an easy thing, for the highly specialized and technical character of this age in which we live demands of us an excellence in performance at high levels of skill. And a substance of these skills and talents can be acquired only in specialized areas of education, particularly the classrooms of our colleges and universities. (Rep. Quie, 1 June 1965, p. 12080)

3  PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES AND CONGRESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS… 

39

In this excerpt, although positioned as a favorable argument for the HEA 1965, access is ultimately still only granted for those at the top of academic rankings. This does not represent an effort to provide access to all capable or all willing, rather access for the best and most likely to excel in the new world order. This raises another criticism of the HEA 1965, and that is the lack of focus on the community college, an institution designated at the time, an institution for those willing but less capable. Senator Williams and Senator Morse were very concerned with this omission and raised the concern before the Senate on 10 June 1965. Senator Williams spoke on their behalf, noted that not only was the two-year college not included in the provisions for improvement of facilities, but the students who opted to attend junior and community colleges were not entitled to the same financial assistance as those who attended four-year colleges and universities. Williams also argued that although some students would continue their education at four-year institutions after their studies are complete at the two-year level and are thus entitled to the scholarships and grants provided by the bill, many will not further their studies and instead enter the workforce (10 June 1965, p. 13208). In effect, this omission harms the student who is eager to work, or whose ability or economic status prevents entry to the four-year institution at the onset of their education. Adding to the institutional role in prohibition of access, college admissions were a point of discussion in the Senate. The number of “first generation and socially disadvantaged youths” applying for college admission was on the rise due to national demand, but access was not supported by admissions processes. This, Senator Williams argued, was an area to “reevaluate and redefine…procedures in our life for the full and most effective utilization of our human and natural resources” as “society has placed the demands for higher education on the youth of our Nation and even made education a requisite for success in many professions, but at the same time, has failed to recognize this explosive potential by continuing arbitrary and inadequate criteria for admissions to these universities” (14 June 1965, p. 13552). This was a barrier not under the auspices of the federal government, but it was an issue that needed attention if the barriers of access were going to be removed for students willing and capable of participating in higher education. Access to higher education to promote the natural resources of the nation, the human capital, was a key argument in favor of the HEA 1965 presented by Senator Hartke on 19 July 1965. Senator Hartke explained

40 

A. L. PALMADESSA

the economic benefit of extending access to more individuals to fulfill national needs, particularly in the areas of national defense and the Space Race. Fulfillment of these needs reinforce that “we are beginning to shift from the past popular view of education as a cost and a burden to a realistic understanding of education as an investment providing returns of significant proportions” (Sen. Hartke, 19 July 1965, p.  17357). Hartke continued his position that the US was “seriously lagging in investment in an area of high return” and that “higher education has significant meaning” for the national economy and the individual, as those who attain higher degrees earn a higher income (p. 17357). Higher education cannot benefit individuals or the state if those who desire or are capable of furthering their education do not have access to it. Access, therefore, must be granted to those who are assumed to want and are capable of but are not able to pay for a college education. This investment in human capital, individuals who are otherwise assumed to avoid the debt of an education, will lead to a return that validates any federal expense. Commodifying the individuals and considering them to be objects to lead to institutions of higher education for national dividends is a discursive strategy to convince the opposition, not encourage students to enroll. For the leaders who oppose funding education for more people, particularly poor people, the return on investment in economic terms is a difficult outcome to contest.

The Nation References to the national advantages of more individuals pursuing and completing higher education was a discursive fixture in the floor debates. How the nation would benefit from more highly educated citizens was divided across the general national welfare and the position of the US among nations. National welfare was beneficial to all levels of society and each layer of power; if people succeed, the nation succeeds, and vice versa. National power is distinct to the nation as a whole, the identity of the nation-state, and the position of the US among nations. Having an educated citizenry solidified a position of authority in opposition to ideological foes. This, of course, was a key component within the context of the Cold War. Considering the Cold War was, among other points of contention, consumed with ideological values tied to national success, Johnson’s Great Society program had a dual purpose: to combat poverty at home, and raise

3  PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES AND CONGRESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS… 

41

the status of the US in world affairs. Although the US was still considered the leading nation in the post-World War II world, the threat of Soviet competition kept the president focused on any endeavor that could elevate national reputation and influence. He noted that education was a challenge for the nation in peace and in times of duress, but without the opportunity for individuals to succeed, the nation could not succeed. In fact, he argued that military might was useless if “we lack the brainpower to build a world of peace” (Johnson, 12 January 1965, p.  508). Representative Minish built upon this position when he argued “I believe the national defense and welfare depends largely upon the best possible education of all Americans. A larger investment in education is the only insurance of this purpose” (24 March 1965, p. 5766). Further linking the national interest to education policy, Senator Morse argued on 7 April 1965, that attainment of college education was directly tied to foreign policy. He acknowledged that “we cannot keep ahead of Russia and China in manpower, but we had better keep ahead of both of them in brainpower” because “the greatest security weapon we have is the potential brainpower of the youth of this country…It [is] more important to our security that we develop this potential brainpower than that we develop hydrogen bombs” (Sen. Morse, 7 April 1965, pp. 7299–7300). Representative Quie found the connection between power, national welfare, weaponry, and education to be of utmost importance, arguing that the nation’s power rested in the individuals’ contributions to weaponry and strength: in a world that sees the United States joined in contests of nuclear development and space exploration with other great powers, it is upon the educated that great dependency will be placed for accomplishments in these fields. And it is disconcerting to observe that while the U.S. lags, the Soviet Union is considerably accelerating its programs of technical training, producing at least twice as many engineers each year as we are in America. In effect, we are operating on a reserve of technical talent that is not being properly replaced, and every effort should be made to correct this condition. (1 June 1965, p. 12080)

Senator Dominick held a similar position, that higher education is “vital to our national interest,” and as the nation grows in population, so must the “strength and excellence of our educational resources” (1 June 1965, p. 12081). The Senator argued that it is “crucial that we give top priority

42 

A. L. PALMADESSA

to maintain the strongest educational system possible and this is only possible if the youth of the Nation are provided the financial opportunity to participate in higher education” (p. 12081). The need for highly skilled technicians to maintain national defense was echoed in the House by Representative Pelly who noted that in the “jet-space-nuclear age,” it was necessary not only for an individual to have a college degree for employment, but also for the nation to maintain its position as world leader (2 June 1965, p. 12360). The nation needs not only scientific minds to create a means of defense but also leaders to maintain national welfare. In addressing the importance of the HEA 1965, Senator Williams noted the duty of the youth to embrace the “complex responsibilities” before them, and in an effort to find the best leaders, the HEA 1965 provides a means by which the nation can look at all capable youth to “find the responsible leaders of the future” (10 June 1965, p. 13207). This required that income not be a barrier to college, in turn providing a role for those talented individuals to be involved in the nation’s welfare. “Talents,” Senator Williams stated, “are measured, not by economic background, but by the opportunity and ability to produce” (p.  13207). Representative St. Onge on the same day made the same argument, and connected the benefits of the HEA 1965 to the nation by pointing that in return for the investment in individuals to achieve higher education, these individuals would “become decent and useful members of society. Thus…the entire Nation will be the beneficiary of this legislation” (p.  13303). These individuals will grow their intelligence, a benefit that can alter the course of nations away from focusing on power through technology, to a focus on achieving a peaceful world, led of course by the democratic, superior US (Representative Sickles, 1 July 1965, p. 15339). Higher education has no place if the nation fails. Discourse to support the nation’s success as a means to solidify the purpose and need for higher education is a practice that reminds those in opposition that the decisions they make not only impact individuals’ ability to attend college but also influence the future of the United States. Knowledge breeds leaders, and leaders secure the state; the educated create the weaponry, and weapons win wars; when weapons are not needed, intelligent citizens ensure peace. These discursive mechanisms connect the individual to the state, aligning the success and failure of one directly to the other, creating a sense of consequence for the whole, should one fail. The nation as superior and

3  PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES AND CONGRESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS… 

43

most important is a common discursive strategy in the face of an enemy, real or imagined, especially in the ideological battlefield of the Cold War.

Democracy Even within the context of the Cold War when the US and the Western nations were challenged by extreme ideologies in 1965, World War II and the triumph of democracy were still undergirding national goals and discourse. Thus, when considering how higher education could support the democratic nation, the ideals synonymous with democratic institutions and the drive to preserve the founding principles of the US were effective discursive strategies to garner support for the legislation. President Johnson used discourse of democratic idealism to bring attention to the founding principles of the US, and attached those concepts to famous founders, such as Thomas Jefferson. In his effort to win Congress’ cooperation with the education agenda, Johnson argued that the “Nation’s sake” depended upon meeting the educational needs of all individuals. He wrote in his letter, “Nothing matters more to the future of our country…not our democratic system of government—for freedom is fragile if citizens are ignorant” (Johnson, 12 January 1965, p. 508). The use of the Jeffersonian reference awarded Johnson recognition as a Jeffersonian Democrat, and likened him to the revered President Kennedy (Senator Morse, 12 January 1965, p. 588). Responding to Johnson’s message to Congress, Senator Greuning continued with the discourse of Jefferson and the need to preserve democratic ideals. Citing Jefferson in his remarks, Greuning pointed that education not only preserved democracy but protects against tyranny and serves as a foundation for democratic ideals. This was further enforced by reference to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that guaranteed educational opportunity for those under the auspices of the Continental Congress (Sen. Greuning, 15 January 1965, p. 765). Education as a means to preserve democracy, protect from tyrannical rule, and to continue enjoying the liberties offered in a democratic state is the foundation of the American dream, and is an important benefit afforded through education legislation such as the HEA 1965 (Representative Green, 19 January 1965, p. 947). One glaring challenge to achieving, much less preserving, democratic ideals in the US in 1965 was the issue of race. Representative Minish asked why education was so important to the United States in the effort to maintain a leading position among nations. He explained in his

44 

A. L. PALMADESSA

presentation that “the answer lies in what we are coming to understand as a new definition to the word ‘freedom’…most importantly, freedom is a personal quality,” as those who enjoy freedom can make decisions based on the premise of freedom as he understands it (24 March 1965, p. 5766). “One is free only to the point that he understands himself, his surroundings, and his relationship to society,” making “prejudice and ignorance” the enemies of freedom (p. 5766). The only way to combat the enemy is to support the education of as many young Americans as possible (Senator Randolph, 7 April 1965, p. 7289) because knowledge is the best means to win the war on poverty and preserve the American dream (Representative St. Onge, 10 June 1965, p. 13302). The use of historical references, freedom and liberty, were effective discursive strategies. In the Cold War context in which the US was continuously compared to China and Russia, and was engulfed in a battle to contain communism in Vietnam, any reference to democratic ideals would elevate the purpose of the bill at hand. Pointing to renowned founding fathers and documents at the base of the democratic nation-state also proved effective as these individuals are deified and their work immortalized by the lasting impact of the governmental documents. These documents and foundations are at the core of American democratic ideology; reinforcing the ideology and codes of that which defeated the Axis powers in World War II and are standing on the precipice of defeating the leftist regimes is present throughout the debates and speeches, and reflected as the most important goal of Congress.

Pro-Education Education was a hallmark of the late President Kennedy’s quest to resolve issues of race in the US, and President Johnson carried that vision into several civil rights legislative actions and his anti-poverty agenda. Education, broadly, was an important topic in the 88th and 89th Congresses, and the resulting laws had a profound impact on the future of public education and the relationship between the federal government and education. The legislative victories of 1964 and 1965 served as a foundation of support for the need and success of the HEA 1965. Furthermore, as represented by these actions and the HEA as written and debated, education was clearly an important aspect of US social, political, economic, and cultural success.

3  PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES AND CONGRESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS… 

45

References to other bills before Congress in 1965 and previous legislation were commonplace in supportive and opposing arguments. The ESEA 1965, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the EOA 1964, and the CRA 1964 were constant reminders of where the HEA 1965 fit within the context of Johnson’s Great Society agenda. In addition, the GI Bill of 1944 and the NDEA 1958 were often referenced as successful laws that helped students and institutions by providing much needed financial support for each party. The Morrill Act of 1862 was also a popular action cited by supporters of the HEA 1965. Representative Brandemas pointed to the fact that the Morrill Land-Grant Act focused on educating more individuals in rural communities, and the HEA was positioned to do the same in urban areas (1 February 1965, p. 1644). These previous or co-­ occurring bills all had a connection to higher education and the importance of educating more individuals to the highest degree attainable. There were two legislative amendments under consideration at the time that coincided with the goals of HEA, albeit for two specific populations. The GI Bill was being discussed as needing revision to include service members involved in the Vietnam conflict. Because the legislation stated that combat service in warfare, not conflicts of any other level, was required to receive benefits, there were debates as to where service in Vietnam fit. Additionally, the NDEA 1958 supported those seeking degrees in education, as that was the vital need in the immediate postSputnik environment—more qualified teachers to provide science education. Each of these important higher education initiatives were debated alongside the HEA 1965. This resulted in a simultaneous support for the need to provide more education to individuals, and opposition as there was legislation for important segments of society already in place. Although there were challenges as to how educational support at the collegiate level should be handled, it was never a question of the value of educating the American people.

The Opposition Representatives and senators who opposed the Higher Education Act of 1965 were most vocal about two specific points: the scholarship program and the role of the federal government in higher education. The scholarship program was contested in part by previous attempts to offer cost relief through tax breaks to individuals and families paying tuition and fees. These bills used a sliding scale system to offer tax relief based on income

46 

A. L. PALMADESSA

and total investment in higher education. Additionally, philanthropy was encouraged as private donors could also receive the benefit for their contributions. At surface value, this appears to be a reasonable alternative. However, the focus of these alternatives was on middle-income families, not on the lowest income or those who were not even taxed because of the depth of poverty. Compounding the inequitable distribution of relief was the scale that also allotted greater relief to those paying higher tuitions, which arguably correlated to those with higher incomes (Congressional Record, 26 August 1965o). Defenders of the tax relief programs argued that even if this was the case, the intent for more students to attend higher education was still achieved. The same critics also took issue with Title III of the HEA 1965. This portion of the bill was dedicated to institution improvement for smaller, struggling colleges. The challenge presented was that too much authority was vested in the Office of Education, giving one individual authority over large sums of federal money, to be distributed based on colleges’ claims of financial constraint (Congressional Record, 26 August 1965o). This issue is related to the overall question of what is the appropriate role of the federal government in public education that was thoroughly debated during the presentation of the ESEA 1965, parallel to the HEA 1965. In effect, once the ESEA passed, the debatable role of federal involvement in education was put to rest. Another effort to derail this legislation was attempted through the rules committee. In August, the last attempt to stall this landmark decision was by members of both houses who felt the debates of the HEA 1965 were not adequate, and claimed that the members who opposed or had amendments before committee were railroaded, likening the situation to that of the ESEA 1965, which they claimed was forced through Congress by President Johnson. A heated debate ensued on the floor but was ultimately deemed inadequately evidenced, allowing for each house to hold a vote. On 26 August, H.R. 9567 passed the House of Representatives, and on 2 September, the Senate passed S. 600, and the final draft, which was revised and agreed upon by both Houses’ subcommittees on education, was approved on 20 October 1965, the final stage for this bill to cross the president’s desk for implementation.

3  PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES AND CONGRESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS… 

47

A Victory for Higher Education President Johnson signed the Higher Education Act of 1965 into law on 8 November at his alma mater, Southwest Texas State College. In the public signing statement, Johnson reinforced the importance of higher education for the United States and the duty of the federal government to support the public institution that he heralded as a necessity, not a luxury. He praised members of Congress for their work in supporting education, claiming that this legislation was the key to opening the doors of higher education, breaking down walls preventing American youth from furthering their studies, and a promise to those who seek higher education the road to knowledge for their personal growth and attainment. Now, he claimed, higher education would not be an insurmountable goal for any person in the US, regardless of their economic status. After outlining the key components of the HEA 1965, Johnson proclaimed, “And in my judgment, this Nation can never make a wiser or a more profitable investment anywhere… The roots of change and reform are spreading, not just throughout Washington, but throughout every community in every State of this great Nation” (Johnson, 8 November 1965). His signing statement was a combination of reinforcing the parameters of the law, praise for the supporters, and a moment to quell any dissent. He continued with a promise that, “I want to make it clear once and for all, here and now, so that all that can see can witness and all who can hear can hear, that the Federal Government—as long as I am President—intends to be a partner and not a boss in meeting our responsibilities to all the people. The Federal Government has neither the wish nor the power to dictate education” (Johnson, 8 November 1965). This landmark achievement, he argued, was a promise to the nation’s youth to keep the barrier of poverty out of their way if they choose to go to college. Johnson explained that “we have opened the road and we have pulled the gates down and the way is open, and we expect them to travel it” (Johnson, 8 November 1965). Then, he connected the individual gains to national gains as he stated, “seeking and receiving the knowledge that is an absolute necessity if we are to maintain our freedom in a highly competitive world” (Johnson, 8 November 1965). In closing, Johnson positioned the duty of the individual to accept this offer on behalf of national success. The president painted a clear image of what continuing education means for America when he referenced the day’s news: All you have to do is look at the morning paper this morning to see the rockets that were paraded down the avenues in the Soviet Union yesterday

48 

A. L. PALMADESSA

or the day before, and realize that until we banish ignorance, until we drive disease from our midst, until we win the war on poverty, we cannot expect to continue to be the leaders not only of a great people but the leaders of all civilization. (8 November 1965)

For any dissenter, the message was clear—supporting higher education defends our nation; for the supporters, their loyalty was reinforced; for the youth of America, the charge was clearly stated. It was a victorious moment when the federal government took responsibility for breaking down barriers to higher education for those who could not afford it. But that was only the first step; this legislation reinforced equity and equality efforts in the US, although it would take multiple revisions, amendments, and reauthorizations before the HEA 1965 lived up to the expectation of providing a means to higher education for anyone who sought and was capable of succeeding in college. Johnson’s statement on 8 November reflects not only a victory, and references the initial charge, but the discursive practices used throughout the debates are present in this text. He addressed equity, access, the nation, democracy, and the importance of education, just as his supporters did from January to October 1965. It is no mistake that the discourse is present in the initial letter to Congress and the public statement accompanying the newly signed law. The president’s agenda was clearly supported and deeply embedded in the discourse represented throughout the texts analyzed. Johnson called for equity and access for the poor, not mentioning racial equality, support of the nation-state, and democratic ideals, and positioned the HEA 1965 as a continuation of previous education legislation.

The Future of the Higher Education Act The Higher Education Act of 1965 was an important step in Johnson’s Great Society Program. But the War on Poverty was not won, and keeping higher education at the forefront of the quest for opportunity for all was a means to combat the barriers of socioeconomic mobility. How important higher education access would be in the next administration, in part, depended upon the historical context—Vietnam, the Civil Rights Movement, federal spending, and the incoming president’s agenda—but

3  PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES AND CONGRESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS… 

49

also on the perceived value of higher education and the ability of higher education to promote the public good. The HEA 1965 provided a foundation for higher education to play a role in leveling the field in the US; whether or not the institution would be at the forefront of future agendas, regardless of reauthorization parameters and timelines, determines the implications and reach of the legislation, not to mention the criticisms and challenges experienced upon implementation. The 1966 Coleman Report compared enrollment data for black and white students by number and institution type (Barros, 1968). This report was created as an evaluation of the CRA 1964 clause regarding education, which stated that under the legislation, educational opportunities had to be available to all individuals, regardless of race (Dickinson, 2016). The ultimate finding of the report was that equal opportunity, regardless of race, was not achieved. Instead, black students who did enroll in colleges and universities did so at either traditionally black institutions, where few faculty members held doctoral degrees, or at smaller, less prestigious colleges and universities. Critics determined that part of the reason for lack of access for the disadvantaged was due to the lack of changes within institutional policies, leaving room for significant improvement in civil rights legislation (Barros, 1968). Herein lies the challenge set forth in 1965, a formidable task for the Higher Education Act to overcome. With the evidence presented in the Coleman Report in 1966, and the HEA 1965 in its infancy, access for disadvantaged students was still minimal at best and not meeting the demand to provide equal opportunity for students, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. The federal government’s role in ending discriminatory practices had to be met with increased financial support (Barros, 1968). After implementation of the HEA 1965, access was improved for those who were able to take advantage of the funding opportunities. However, the legislation was not sufficient, and amendments were necessary. In 1968, several bills were sent before both Houses to amend the HEA 1965. Specifically, HR 15067 sought to extend the HEA 1965, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, and the NDEA (1958) to 1973, as well as improve financial aid programs, include support for disadvantaged students that were inadequately prepared for higher education, and a means to share educational resources. These efforts demonstrate that the “practical aspect of equal educational opportunity is financial. Programs and students must be financed” (Barros, 1968, p. 314). In support of expanding opportunity

50 

A. L. PALMADESSA

for disadvantaged students through higher education, Barros argued in 1968: one fact is self-evident: equal opportunity in higher education does not exist. It is equally self-evident that modern society demands a highly educated and skilled population. This country cannot afford to leave a large segment of the population trailing by the wayside. Momentarily, it is of no real significance whether institutions of higher education consider opening their doors to all youth, regardless of class and financial ability, for the purpose of giving them the opportunity to better themselves, or to lead a more meaningful life, or for purely pragmatic purposes. All that is important is that they open their doors. (p. 315)

Sadly, this assertion was published in 1968 after the CRA 1964 and HEA 1965 were in place. The data in the Coleman Report support the critic’s argument, and the call for Congress to act was clear. In 1968, the federal government is called to reinforce civil rights, and live up to the promise of equal access to higher education.

References Baptiste, H.  P., Orvosh-Kamenski, H., & Kamenski, C. (2004). American Presidents and their attitudes, beliefs, and actions surrounding education and multiculturalism; Fifth installment: Examining Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Lyndon B. Johnson. Multicultural Education, A Series of Research Studies in Educational Policy, Winter, 2004, 34–47. Barros, F. J. (1968). Equal opportunity in higher education. The Journal of Negro Education, 37(3), 310–315. Civil Rights Act of 1964. (P. L. 88-352). https://www.archives.gov/milestone-­ documents/civil-­rights-­act Dickinson, E. E. (2016). Coleman Report set the standard for the study of public education. Johns Hopkins Magazine, Winter 2016. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2016/winter/coleman-­report-­public-­ education/ Economic Opportunity Act. (1964). (P.L. 88-452). https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/STATUTE-­78/pdf/STATUTE-­78-­Pg508.pdf Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (1965). P.L. 89-10. Johnson, L.  B. (1965, November 8). Remarks at Southwest Texas State College Upon Signing the Higher Education Act of 1965. Retrieved from https://www. presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-­s outhwest-­t exas-­s tate-­c ollege-­ upon-­signing-­the-­higher-­education-­act-­1965

CHAPTER 4

Reauthorization in Times of Crisis, 1968–1976

President Johnson won domestic victories in civil rights, education, and economic legislation, but the conflict in Vietnam persisted and racial tensions erupted into more instances of violence toward the end of his presidency. There was criticism of the president’s continued escalation of involvement in Vietnam, which was met with fierce opposition through protests and demonstrations, often on college campuses. Violence was also prevalent across the US, as race riots were ongoing in urban neighborhoods across the nation. Two strands of violence, coupled with presidential promises to promote democracy and equality, led to a strained conclusion to Johnson’s presidency. Timing was also unfortunate for Johnson as the Higher Education Act was due for reauthorization in 1968, an election year that happened to also be synonymous with violence and discontent in the United States. President Johnson did not ignore the violence or discontent from the American public regarding Vietnam or the continued challenges in race relations. In fact, President Johnson appointed the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders to consider the status of race relations in the wake of the 1967 race riots. The resulting report from that commission, commonly referred to as the Kerner Commission Report, was released in February of 1968. The report not only acknowledged that the race riots were legitimately caused by divides in society between white and black Americans but significantly pointed out that “white racism [was] the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. L. Palmadessa, Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43706-9_4

51

52 

A. L. PALMADESSA

principal cause of the civil disorder evidenced across hundreds of U.S. cities in which riots occurred” (Gooden & Myers, 2018, p.  2). Although directly in response to race riots, the Kerner Report acknowledged that even with Johnson’s efforts and congressional support, the quest for equality was far from attained. The first reauthorization of the HEA in 1968 was an expansion of Johnson’s efforts to provide support for those who most needed it in higher education. This was the transition of early TRIO programs established in 1964 through the Economic Opportunity Act that created Upward Bound, and the Talent Search provision of the HEA 1965, to the purview and combined funding source of the HEA 1968. This legislation moved the student support arm of TRIO from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Higher Education Programs. TRIO would be a topic of legislative attention again in 1972 and 1976 with additional offices and professional development programs for staff in TRIO program offices (McElroy & Armesto, 1998). These programs targeted the most vulnerable college populations so that once through the doors of colleges and universities, student from disadvantaged backgrounds had support mechanisms available to support their success in higher education and, ultimately, upward mobility. Johnson reinforced his efforts and impact on the quest to make American society more equitable in his memoir when he wrote that the success of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was his greatest achievement, and that the ESEA 1965 and HEA 1965 were evidence of his dedication to secure education for all, regardless of race or economic status. This, he felt, was the only way to create a Great Society (Baptiste et  al., 2004, p.  42). A more equitable and less impoverished society was the goal of Johnson’s domestic policy agenda. In fact, scholars argue that “no other President has spoken so strongly about these issues and utilized the power of the presidential office to begin to remedy these inequalities” (Baptiste et al., 2004). Higher education provided a means to resolve disparities, as the individuals enrolled in higher education were representatives of American society; thus, students who access higher education reflect the successes or failures of the quest for a Great Society (Shaw, 1971). However successful Johnson’s plans were to eliminate barriers for the disadvantaged to reach their full potential, the war was still raging in and outside of colleges and universities. Shaw (1971) argued that what occurs within the halls of academe is a reflection of American society at large. The calls for reform within the

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

53

universities and the calls for social and political change outside of campuses are essentially parallel efforts. Those leading reforms “raise a larger issue…in leveling this attack: that of the viability of American society. This is the politics of higher educational reform: an apparent concern with students that translates into an attack upon society” (Shaw, 1971, p. 294). This is corroborated by Chalmers (1971) who argued that the decade of the 1970s was difficult for higher education, as it reflected the risky social changes external to the university. These challenges were the result of the 1960s, which Chalmers (1971) positioned as higher education’s “civil war,” creating the need for an era of “reconstruction” in the 1970s (p. 505). The reform focus was placed on the needs of students, which becomes problematic when there are student disturbances (Shaw, 1971) and negative public perceptions of higher education, adding a layer of difficulty in not only validating the value of higher education but in justifying increased funding sources during an economic crisis. This placed a significant burden on college administrators to bring “disparate groups together” and persuade “students and faculty members to assume increased responsibility” within their home institution (Chalmers, 1971, p.  512). However, “the most critical of these efforts will be [for the administrators] to relate faculty and student goals and expectations to an uniformed, and currently, to a disenchanted public” (Chalmers, 1971, p. 512). When considering the role of students in the quest to change institutions, Shaw (1971) argued students were not necessarily interested in higher education reforms specifically; rather, they were more concerned with the parallel challenges in the context of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The focus was placed on the US government’s agents with power as reflective of institutional leaders’ power, and the discontent with those in power in greater society lead students to call for reform without stating to what end in higher education. The result was that “the university is indeed in a state of crisis, for it has been politicized without even knowing it” (Shaw, 1971, p. 303). This creates a precarious context for higher education in an uncertain and ever-changing sociopolitical moment in American history (Chalmers, 1971). Higher education as a topic of political concern and debate was a relatively new phenomenon, as the institution “moved from the periphery of American politics to a position of a central participant and contestant for national resources” in a period of about 25 years, from World War II to 1972 (Murray, 1976, p. 79). This not only meant that the institution itself

54 

A. L. PALMADESSA

was politicized, but the nature of the relationship between higher education and the federal government was changing. Higher education could either be the recipient of federal decisions or take an active role in the policymaking process with this evolution in national attention (Moynihan, 1975; Murray, 1976; Sandalow, 1975). Given the acceptance of higher education as important to national life, critics expect the institution to use this position to the benefit of academic programs and students who seek higher education (Moynihan, 1975). Part of the issue is perspective; academicians criticize politicians for being short-sighted, caring only about personal interest rather than broad social interest, whereas politicians consider academicians out of touch with the political process, narrowly focused on self-gain, and arrogant in their communications outside of academia. However, the federal government is “interested in harnessing some of the nation’s best talent, often found in universities, to solve certain societal problems” (Lane, 1978, p. 142). This does not only benefit the national government, but it raises the awareness in the public sphere of the importance of higher education in American society (Lane, 1978). Moving to the forefront of national support, political debate, and social awareness did not come without criticism. As higher education was drawn into challenging sociopolitical turmoil through protest, violence, and legislation to increase access, the purpose and value of the institution was questioned. The student consumer was overwhelmed by choices, and the traditional expectation for state public institutions to be at the forefront of students’ desires was not maintaining its priority position among institutions of higher learning (Swagler, 1978, pp.  126–128). Contemporary scholars pointed to two factors that contributed to the decline in interest in large state institutions and a steady decline in enrollment: admission policies that did not support access for all and meritocracy (Lane, 1978; Litt, 1974; Sandalow, 1975). One of the questions weighing heavily on the higher education community in 1972 was how to frame admission policies in an effort to increase diversity, if the institution was to support the efforts initiated by the Johnson administration. Cases of discrimination, preferential admissions processes, and questions of the legality of affirmative action in college admissions were at the forefront of legal concerns regarding higher education in the early 1970s (Sandalow, 1975). As cases reached the Supreme Court for review, Title IX was before Congress as part of the reauthorization package. Title IX encapsulated the goal of ending discrimination in higher education access based upon sex or race (Huckle, 1978), and

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

55

affirmative action could provide the much needed means of enforcement (Geiger, 2019). Affirmative action and implications for higher education were difficult to navigate, as Nixon’s executive order that revised the entities included in the policy called for specificity of institutions of higher education. With Title IX coinciding with this revision in 1972, colleges and universities had to take into account how women were treated on campus, their roles and supports, and policies that impacted admissions and success of female students, faculty, and staff (Geiger, 2019). The second issue plaguing higher education enrollment and public perception of value was the concept of meritocracy, a “professional-­ administrative strata” that maintains a “high socioeconomic status” and lays claim to influencing knowledge-sharing and exhibiting the appropriate skill sets for a formally, highly educated class (Litt, 1974, p.  533). Thus, higher education not only responds to and serves this professional class, but colleges and universities are the gatekeepers of social mobility to the professional class. It is therefore very difficult for lower-status individuals, based on race or economic status, to achieve social mobility much less to the professional class, without the opportunity to attend postsecondary schools. The only way this can be achieved is if significant numbers of minority students are able to enroll in college; this can only happen if opportunity grants are extended. Litt argued in 1974, “significant upward mobility into the professional class occurs only when significant numbers of the disadvantaged receive the educational and occupational rewards generally available to professional class members” (p. 534). Access to this professional class in America is prohibited by a multitude of barriers (Litt, 1974), including testing protocols and admissions policies (Barros, 1968; Sandalow, 1975). If the goal truly is to develop a more equal society, then the policies and practices in higher education must reflect this effort, not cause additional barriers (Sandalow, 1975).

The First Reauthorization: 1968 The 1968 HEA reauthorization considerations before Congress had to address identified failures of the original legislation, as well as consider how to best position the reauthorization as a means to meet the goal of Johnson’s Great Society. As discussed in Chap. 3, opponents of the grant model presented in the final HEA 165 preferred a tax deduction model to help families pay for college. In 1968, one point of debate was the US

56 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Treasury Regulation Section 1.162–5, part of the 1967 laws regarding tax deductions for education. Scholars such as Wilson and Moore (1973) criticized the Treasury’s interpretation of what type of educational expenses should be deductible, a provision the authors argue would allow more individuals the ability to attend higher education. The tax deduction regulations of 1967 only benefited individuals who had to further their education to maintain current employment, or if regulations relevant to the job duties or the employer require additional education or skills training. This, Wilson and Moore (1973) argue, is antithetical to human capital theory, which posits that the nation’s greatest asset is human capital. Supporting this claim, the same regulations permit tax deductions for medical expenses, stating that medical expenses are deductible over education expenses because healthcare is considered a “maintenance of reproducible capital” (Wilson & Moore, 1973, p. 17). Citing Adam Smith, the authors further contend that the lack of support for individuals seeking higher education via tax relief is also in opposition to “Adam Smith’s first canon of tax policy – equity,” which should be treated as an “investment in any other form of capital” (Wilson & Moore, 1973, p. 14). Ignoring these incongruences punishes individuals and robs the nation of an education workforce. Considering the nation’s financial constraints due to the expense of the Cold War, coupled with the controversy over student protests and racial violence, the debates in 1968 were difficult and fueled by partisan politics, divided along the lines of race and war. Since this was the first time the HEA was amended, there were plenty of decisions to be made, based upon what did or did not work and what needed to be improved. Coupled with the volatile historical context, this would be a significant and difficult policy negotiation. Given the extensive changes proposed in the 1968 reauthorization, the House and Senate subcommittees suggested a separation of the student aid provisions from the omnibus bill. The rationale was to expedite the extension of the four aid programs so that institutions and students had financial information for the upcoming academic year. As noted in the debates on 5 March and 9 May 1968, the timeline for Congressional debate and reauthorization of legislation did not match the needs of colleges and universities’ financial planning. Thus, each subcommittee agreed that pulling the four aid programs out to be reauthorized separately would benefit the colleges, students, and the ability of the subcommittees and their respective chambers to adequately discuss, debate, and prepare the full HEA reauthorization. The extension of the four

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

57

programs was to be funded for two years, until the 1970 cycle, so that those impacted could plan accordingly. Ultimately, it was argued that this would encourage more students to proceed with studies; with the uncertainty of funding, students with financial needs may not attend college for fear of lack of support. This two-year plan secures funding for the students most in need, allowing them to plan and meet their goals without the burden of government delay (Congressional Record, 5 March 1968c; 9 May 1968d). Although the urgency was recognized, the reauthorization of the four aid programs did not come without considerable debate and negotiation. One issue raised in the final days of debate was whether or not students who cause disruption on campus should be entitled to federal funds. The reauthorization discussions coincided with significant student protests on college and university campuses nationwide. Members of Congress debated whether or not those who caused disruptions should be eligible to receive federal monies to pay for their education. Given the importance of noting the 10-year anniversary of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, and the foundation that legislation provided for the success of HEA 1965, the relationship between defense, national goals, and financial support for higher education was an important consideration to members of Congress. This consideration was a central concern in the House debates on 9 May 1968. HEA funds were set to expire on 30 June, adding pressure to the representatives to pass the reauthorization package, after unanimous committee support. Equity Even with the tenable success of the HEA 1965, equal access to higher education was still not achieved. In 1968 (5 February), President Johnson issued a letter to Congress applauding the legislation’s positive impact on students and families, the testament to the HEA being a demonstration of democratic ideals, and recognizing the shortcomings. In the letter, the president offered to increase funding and support reauthorization plans that would reach more potential students. Increasing federal monetary support was important, as the rising cost of higher education was once again making higher education unattainable for more families and potential students, effectively negating much of the progress (Rep. Reid, 9 May 1968). Importantly, the addition of the NDEA 1958 to the HEA omnibus bill targeted the lowest-income families. It was the legacy of the

58 

A. L. PALMADESSA

NDEA and the desire to confront the rising costs that encouraged senators Yarborough and Morse to not only remind their colleagues of the intent of the NDEA’s inclusion in the bill but preserve the specifications regarding income and guarantee of support, without traditional credit status required for loans (Congressional Record, 15 July 1968f). President Johnson addressed Congress on the issue of equity and the successes and remaining challenges of the HEA: “Yet for all our progress, we still face enormous problems in education: stubborn, lingering, unyielding problems. The phrase, ‘equal educational opportunity’ to the poor family in Appalachia and to the Negro family in the city, is a promise—not a reality” (Johnson, 5 February 1968b, Congressional Record, p. 2002). Thus, Johnson recommended that Congress support his long-­ term plans to “eliminate race and income as bars to higher education” (p. 2003). The means to this goal is the Educational Opportunity Act of 1968, a proposal Johnson put forward in the reauthorization packet. This Act, Representative Boggs argued, strengthened the original legislation and was a means to guarantee the right to education for all (p.  2005). However well-meaning, as Representative Schwengel noted, this does not account for the under-preparedness that coincides with the economically disadvantaged students this legislation aims to assist (9 May 1968). Vice President Humphrey offered that to eliminate this barrier, the federal government had to invest in education at all levels, for all children (28 June 1968e, Congressional Record, p.  19275). Senator Yarborough quoted President Kennedy, making a similar point, that education at all levels had to be supported by the highest law. The senator questioned why higher education should cause a family to go into extreme debt to send their child(ren) to school, knowing that any additional education for any individual was a benefit to the entire nation. Kennedy’s message to Congress regarding education in 1962 read: The education of our people is a national investment. It yields tangible returns in economic growth, and improved citizenry, and higher standards of living. But even more importantly, free men and women value education as personal experience and opportunity—as a basic benefit of a free and democratic civilization. It is our responsibility to do whatever needs to be done to make this opportunity available to all and to make it of the highest quality. (Yarborough, 15 July, 1968, p. 21251)

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

59

In this excerpt from Kennedy’s message, read by Senator Yarborough, each of the discursive themes are present—equity, access, the nation, democracy, and pro-education—perfectly summing up the charge before Congress in 1968. Leaders and policymakers had a lot of work left to do to because equal opportunity was not yet achieved. To make this opportunity a reality, not just an idea, preparation for successful completion of college was essential. Access It was noted in many of the early 1968 debates that it was through Johnson’s leadership that more students were able to attend higher education due to the four financial aid programs: work study, two student loan programs, and opportunity grants. President Johnson reminded Congress that these programs reflected the nation’s commitment to assuring that all who seek higher education will have an opportunity, regardless of their financial status, and pointed out that it was not only sheer statistics regarding enrollment that demonstrated an increase in access, but also the public’s determination that education is important for individual and national success (18 January 1968). Representative Quie reinforced this point and cited President Johnson: “It is clear to us all that college has ceased to be the exclusive preserve of the well-to-do in our society. In President Johnson’s words: ‘It is one of the triumphs of American democracy that college is no longer a privilege for the few’” (Congressional Record, 9 May 1968d, p. 12538). This was reinforced by Representative Pirnie of New York who stated, “Every American should have the opportunity to obtain as much education as his talents allow. To deny this is to forsake America’s future” (9 May 1968, p. 12541). Pirnie later reminded his colleagues in the House that this does not mean that higher education should be without cost to the individual, but that it was the responsibility of the federal programs to give access to those who wanted to further their education, and removing the barrier of cost could only be accomplished by federal student aid legislation (Congressional Record, 9 May 1968d). If a capable student cannot access higher education due to cost, “we have suffered a loss this Nation cannot afford” (Rep. Albert, Congressional Record, 9 May 1968d, p. 12554). Similar to the arguments that favored equity in higher education, supporters of the reauthorization proposals suggested that access for the disadvantaged required special, additional services that could be folded into

60 

A. L. PALMADESSA

the omnibus bill. On 5 March 1968, this was outlined in a special section of the Record, defining disadvantaged students as those “coming from depressed economic, social, and cultural backgrounds, have acquired attitudes, motivations, and values different from those which are dominant in the larger community in which they live,” leading to issues with adjustment to college life and more academic challenges, compared to their “more financially able fellow students” (Congressional Record, p. 5158). This disadvantage was not reflective of a students’ actual aptitude and ability to succeed in college; thus, this is a challenge individual institutions must meet to give those disadvantaged by circumstances not only access to college, but access to the potential for success after college as well (Congressional Record, 5 March 1968c). The discursive themes employed in the debate on access utilized most of the macro themes of equity, access, the nation, democracy, and pro-­ education to support continuation of the aid programs. The overall positive language and use of multiple themes in the arguments indicates an effort to distract from the dissenting opinions, which cast a very negative light on students in particular. Reinforcing the value of higher education to the nation and preservation of democracy through access to postsecondary institutions was an important position for supporters to establish to win the vote. The Nation Higher education’s benefit to the nation was a distinct and prominent theme in the congressional debates regarding the 1968 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Facilities Act, and the Vocational Education Act. President Johnson had a unique relationship with this particular education omnibus bill as he not only oversaw the HEA 1965 and the HEFA 1963 from the Oval Office, he was a senator and contributor to the NDEA 1958 as well. Johnson stated, as a member of Congress in 1958, “History may well record that we saved liberty and saved freedom when we undertook a crash program in the field of education” (5 March 1968, p. 5156). Johnson’s experience as a senatorial author and supporter of the NDEA 1958 established his foundation of support of education for national growth. The HEA not only affirmed his commitment but earned him the recognition as a warrior for education.

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

61

Employing the popular metaphor of opening the doors of higher education, President Johnson noted that the HEA “was the key that unlocks a new door for the young people of America: ‘the most important door that will ever open’” (5 March 1968, p. 5155). President Johnson wrote to encourage the support of Congress: The prosperity and well-being of the United States—and thus our national interest—are vitally affected by America’s colleges and universities, junior colleges, and technical institutes. Their problems are not theirs alone, but the Nation’s…As never before we look to the colleges and universities…for help with every problem in our society and with the efforts we are making toward peace in the world. (5 February 1968, p. 2003)

Peace outside of the US certainly could not happen if the American people were not guaranteed the fifth freedom, the “freedom from ignorance,” which “means that every man, everywhere, should be free to develop his talents…For a nation, as for an individual, education is a perpetually unfinished journey…But the work we started when this Nation began,” and in the last three years Congress supported, “is ours to continue, yours and mine” (Johnson, 5 February 1968, p.  2004). As Representative Green pointedly stated in support of Johnson’s vision that the legislation under consideration would impact upwards of two million students whose “future represents…the future of this country, for in providing financial assistance proposed in H.R. 16729, Congress insures not only this Nation’s increased security and productivity, but also the freedoms and benefits to its citizens that justify a nation’s continued existence” (9 May 1968, p.  12534). Representative Brandemas concurred, “In short, not only is it essential that the Congress enact this bill, it is of paramount importance that it do so now. The future of our children and of our Nation and its leadership demands no less” (9 May 1968, p. 12540). Security, productivity, manpower, and economic gains all support the nation’s status as world leader in a context mired with tragedies in Vietnam and other Cold War conflicts, challenging the US’s relationship with other nations, and directly impacting economic output and returns. If the US was to stabilize amid conflict, rise from the economic crisis and extreme inflation, something had to change. In 1968, much like 1958, education was manipulated as a means to reinstate national power and prowess among nations. The difference, however, is that education, higher education specifically, was not blamed for the challenges at home or abroad;

62 

A. L. PALMADESSA

rather, strengthening existing programs was considered the answer, albeit the foundation of the successes of education was the NDEA 1958. The welfare of the nation, reflected in the welfare of individuals, was also an important discursive strategy employed by members of Congress as they debated the reauthorization. In addition to the general argument that furthering education was a value to any capable person and the whole of society, there were other levels of postsecondary education that were just as valuable, and arguably previously overlooked. Namely, the fields of vocational education and graduate education became topics of debate for consideration of increased funding and attention in the bill before Congress. Given the need to bolster the economy and regain dominance in the marketplace, vocational education became an important aspect of national strength. Speaking in support of giving vocational education an elevated position in the reauthorization, Representative Pucinski noted that he understood the needs of the nation had to be balanced, and that balance was reflected in the proposal’s dispersion of funds. However, he argued, vocational education, an educational program that Congress has treated “as a stepchild much too long,” as its importance in resolving manpower needs, which, in turn, supports the national economy, must be addressed so that America’s youth not interested in pursuing a four-year degree are still continuing their education and gaining skill sets for employment (5 February 1968, p. 2018). The Senate reinforced the importance of this need in the overview of the proposed legislation on 5 March 1968: “The job of our Nation’s schools is particularly critical in view of the resultant demands to be faced by the labor force…students must be encouraged to stay in school and to undertake technical training or other occupational work at the postsecondary level” (p. 5180). Graduate education was also brought forth as an important means to promote national welfare. It was in graduate laboratories and research facilities that knowledge was discovered and individuals were trained to work in complex, growing fields. As Representative Green noted, “this Nation cannot afford to lose the edge of excellence in graduate education we have laboriously achieved in the past generation” (5 March 1968). Green and other representatives were very concerned that the Selective Service Act was inadvertently undermining graduate education as the draft was pulling students out of graduate programs, reducing trained manpower and technological advancements in fields that were important to the nation’s wartime efforts.

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

63

The explicit connection between education and the economy in the US was made by Senator Javits when he argued, “When we consider…that 25 percent of all jobs in the country require professional or semiprofessional training, it begins to be clear that the educational system has got to keep pace with the economic system if the country is not to fall on its face in economic and productive terms” (15 July 1968, p. 21240). To further his point, Sen Javits stated that the reauthorization of the HEA is meant to meet “the demands of the American economic machine” and: I predict that if we do not pass this bill and make it law in its essential provisions, then we will have a brain drain in the United States—perhaps a brain disaster not just a brain drain—that we will not be training our young people to accept the responsibilities which the American industrial machine requires and which is the essence of American strength. American strength is not built on upon some abstract concept of our people being strong, willing, effective, and intelligent. It is built on just such institutions [of higher education]…so what we are doing…is striking out boldly with what is essential to the American destiny and, for all practical purposes, giving us an opportunity to double the student body to meet the educational needs of the Nation. That requirement is proportioned directly to the demands of the American system. It is no more, it can be no less. (15 July 1975, p. 21240)

Senator Morse, one of the champions of the original 1965 legislation, supported Senator Javits, stating that the legislation set forth in the reauthorization was in fact economic policies as much as education policies (15 July 1968). National prosperity being equated to individual prosperity, and prosperity being the most important means to maintain a position of power was a dominant theme in the debates. With the disturbances at home and abroad, the cost associated with these challenges, and the general economic competition outside of warfare, it was important for supporters to wield the economic returns of higher education and increased access to gain support for renewing the legislation. Importantly and somewhat unique, however, was the strategy that positioned the nation as an actor to support individual success. Johnson pointedly argued that it was the duty of the nation to act in the best interest of the individual; if the nation helps the individual, the nation succeeds. This was important given the volatile historical context and the vocal opposition to supporting higher education and students amid protest and disruption.

64 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Democracy The democratic nature of the HEA was established in 1965 by the quest for more equitable access to higher education for more people, regardless of financial status. Removing the barrier of privilege was a demonstration of the goals of the Johnson administration in the 1960s to combat poverty. However important to the original legislation, supporting democratic ideals was not a dominant discursive theme in the 1968 debates. When democracy is summoned as a reason to support the reauthorization, it is couched either in terms of the accomplishments of the original Act and its goals of equity, or democracy is considered a means to economic gains for individuals and the nation. Representative Meeds highlighted the economic nature of the legislation when he stated, “This means to the Nation that we are removing economic and other barriers to higher education. But beyond that, this bill is another in a series of enactments designed to strengthen and undergird the basic concept that any society to be free must first be an educated society” (9 May 1968, p. 12551). He continued, “we must realize that an educated individual has…an infinitely better opportunity to become a free individual…which will allow this country to flourish or wither and die as civilizations before us have” (p.  12552). Society, several members of Congress argued, is changing significantly, and higher education is an institution capable of dealing with the changes and challenges: “the country will be made stronger or better capable to meet the challenges of drastic changes in the fabric of our society” (Rep. Meeds, 9 May 1968, p. 12552). Representative Mink corroborated: “This legislation comes at a particularly critical time in our country’s history…this legislation will serve as the best possible evidence that we have to demonstrate not only to our country but particularly to the youth of our country our confidence…in their future…as our future leaders” (9 May 1968, p. 12554). Not giving substantial financial support of the HEA reauthorization would “directly effect the young people of America and will eventually effect the civilization and fabric of our society. Our failure to recognize the priorities of education can result only in human costs” (Rep. Donahue, 9 May 1968, p. 12567). The human costs of not supporting higher education will be felt by students, or potential students who are otherwise excluded, but also the public. Since higher education and the results of research and scholarship are ultimately for the public good, it would be detrimental to all of society

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

65

to reduce federal support for higher education. “The colleges and universities will be asked, increasingly, to attack society’s most difficult problems with research and action programs. They will be expected to help make urban life productive and satisfying, while assisting America’s disadvantaged to participate more fully in the benefits and responsibilities of the society at large” (Rep. Reid, 24 July 1968, p. 23116). Access to higher education for more individuals results in a better life for more people. Representative Reid positioned the institution as beneficial to anyone in need, not just those who wish to attend higher education but cannot afford it. Thus, access is an issue for all individuals, and the benefits of access will be felt by all, and democracy will be preserved. Representative Meeks supported this position when he conflated democracy and capitalism, “nothing we do in this legislative body is more important than what we do to assure this country an increasing and trained supply of individuals, educated to distinguish between those aspects of our society which can hopefully make this country grow and prosper or tear our society asunder…a sound education is one route toward increasing national respect for the system of American ideals which has made this country strong” (24 July 1968, p. 23111). Pro-Education In January of 1968, Congress opened with a focus on the educational accomplishments of the Johnson administration, acknowledging the president’s continued commitment to the HEA 1965 and the recommendations he contributed to the 1968 reauthorization (Congressional Record, 18 January 1968a). Johnson penned a letter to Congress, supporting the reauthorization and inclusion of new programs and funding directives that attest to the president’s continued support. However, the context of 1968—war protests and student activism, increased fighting in Vietnam, a depressed economy, and no immediate connections to the goals of President Kennedy—crafted a more difficult policy environment for federal expenditures on social programs such as education in 1968. Continual reminders of the value of the HEA of 1965 and its predecessor, the NDEA 1958, were a foundation of the pro-education camp in Congress. The NDEA was born out of crisis, as Representative Green notes, but the result of supporting students provided a foundation for the HEA not too many years later. It was the culmination of multiple acts, including HEFA 1963, that solidified the relationship between the federal

66 

A. L. PALMADESSA

government and higher education under Johnson (Rep. Green, 9 May 1968; 24 July 1968). Representative Pernie added that the NDEA “unlocked the college gates for thousands to whom a higher education had only been a dream…NDEA was merely the beginning of our continuing commitment to higher education” (9 May 1968, p. 12541). Legislation opening doors was a common discursive theme, and in this case, a past action opened those doors. Now, it is the duty of the current administration to keep those doors ajar for future generations, an accomplishment Congress lauded President Johnson for supporting. Praising President Johnson for his accomplishments and for the content of his letter regarding the reauthorization, Representative Perkins lamented: President Johnson’s moving special message on education will go down in history as the message which sought to complete the great cycle of Government support programs for the future of our children. For the President has in effect said to us that a society is often remembered in history for what it did or tried to do for the improvement of the mind and character of its citizens. Today’s message calling for a new strategy in educational advance is a monument to the dedication of a President and a Congress which believe education is the first order of business for any government. (5 February 1968, p. 2004)

The president’s accomplishments in legislation were noted, highlighted, and positioned to support the codification of President Johnson as the “education President” (5 February 1968, p. 2004). The return on investment as a reason to support the HEA was another prevalent and important strategy given the overall economic pressures during warfare. Representative Langen presented this position as not only a return on investment, but also as a means to meet the overall goal of the Great Society: “A modest investment in the training of a person who will become a reliable, tax-paying citizen is far superior to any program of assistance that merely doles out tax dollars under our 20th century welfare schemes without measurably reducing poverty or ending the cycle of unemployment” (9 May 1968, p. 12571). This was the most important investment the federal government could make in 1968—support access to higher education to bolster the economy and help end the cycle of poverty.

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

67

The Opposition The greatest challenge for higher education and federal policy in 1968 was the sociopolitical context. The late 1960s were a challenging time for the nation as a whole—the conflict in Vietnam was raging, young men were drafted and sent to Vietnam, there was no end in sight for this Cold War conflict, and there was domestic violence from those who opposed the Civil Rights Movement. The response from the generation being drafted was to protest the war; the same group responded to violence against people of color by standing alongside their peers in protest. These protests and demonstrations against government decisions, continual draft and lack of protection for African Americans, were criticized as defiant and anti-American. These sentiments, held by many members of Congress, fueled the opposition to the HEA. The question was simply, what value does higher education have in the US if it is a haven for protesters and critical perspectives? Representative Rumsfeld of Illinois raised considerable concern for student activism on college campuses, citing the incident at Northwestern University in which students seized an administration building. Given that the university received federal funds, and students received federal aid, Rumsfeld and others argued that it was the purview of the federal government to address such issues. However, there were dissenting voices. Points debated considered whether or not the federal government had the right to engage in college-level policy regarding student behavior, whether or not protests on campuses fell clearly under the First Amendment, and if the protests were in fact a threat to national defense or security. Representative Wyman, in particular, argued that even if the actions did not rise to a legal level, and thus the purview of the government, it would be acceptable for institutions to revoke federal funds from those who violated institutional policy (9 May 1968). Other leaders argued it was acceptable for the federal government to step in and “deal with that small handful of self-styled leaders who can tear up a campus…in pursuit of what they call their rights” (Representative Pucinski, 9 May 1968, 12573). Given the debates as to whether or not to fund more programs in higher education were contentious, student behavior was a point of contention for those not interested in allocating funds to individuals they deemed to be out of control and exhibiting violent, lawless behavior. Actions considered in violation of national defense—burning draft cards or disruption of military movements—were argued as actions in

68 

A. L. PALMADESSA

opposition to the nation. Representative Pike (NY) argued that students who behave in this way “make a mockery of the National Defense Education Act,” since the funds are and were based in support of national defense (9 May 1968, 12553). It was recognized that not all students on college campuses were involved in protests, that there were students who were “sincere in their purpose…who believe in the established institutions of this country and the Constitution” (Rep. Pucinski, 9 May 1968, 12573). Another angle the opposition took to argue for revocation of funds was the right of taxpayers to know what their money was funding, and if the taxpayers questioned the value of the use of their money, it should be reallocated. Representative Ayers argued plainly that “the American people have a right to be assured that this great resource is not imperiled by actions which cannot be described other than as common vandalism” (9 May 1968, 12551). He argued that colleges and universities, as a “great national resource…belong to all the people” is evidenced by the billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money that is invested in higher education (9 May 1968, 12551). Thus, it is the right of the people to know how that money is being spent, and in light of student activism, it cannot be used to support activities counterintuitive to the original bill, the NDEA 1958. Representative Carey, New  York, pointed out that “the raison d’etre of that act [NDEA 1958] is that we felt we needed it back in 1958 and, indeed, we need it in 1968—to strengthen the defense of our country…as the first line of defense of our country [is] educated and trained personnel [who] are required to respond to our country in time of need. However, the kind of response we have been getting from some of the students who are applying for benefits under this act, I think, stray far from the pattern of constructive dissent in terms of national defense and go into patterns I find indefensible” (9 May 1968, 12553). Ultimately, opposition to the HEA amendments in 1968 had little to do with supporting students or not; the argument centered around how to control the youth and whether or not the youth of the nation were exercising First Amendment rights or violating the peaceful expectations of the First Amendment. Members who supported involvement in Vietnam, and those who did not see the Civil Rights Movement as necessary—these positions are not both necessarily both held by the same individuals—did not see the benefits of aiding colleges or their students. Unfortunately, the actions and perceptions of the few nearly derailed the efforts to expand access through the HEA.

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

69

Reauthorization of 1972: Campus Crises and Financial Challenges Adding to the already tumultuous policy terrain in 1968, student activism increased as the conflict in Vietnam continued, claiming the lives of thousands of young, college-aged Americans. Student protests and the intolerance of leaders’ lack of response culminated at Kent State University in 1970. On 4 May 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard, who were called to suppress an anti-Vietnam protest on the campus that started a few days earlier, fired into a crowd of students, killing four and wounding another nine. This “unprecedented act of state-sponsored violence against protesting students on a predominately White college campus…ignited a smoldering crisis in higher education nationwide [as] students expressed their shock and horror in response to the violence” (Eckert, 2022, p. 1). Students protested on their home campuses across the US, expressing anger and frustration with the American government for its foreign policy decisions and for allowing students exercising their right to publicly declare their discontent to be harmed on order of political leaders (Eckert, 2022). More protests did not help public opinion of higher education, even for those who were sympathetic to the students’ frustrations. Some protests caused institutions to close temporarily; in some cases, faculty supported student activism, making the events more public. This attention did not help those who hoped for added federal financial support for higher education and enrollment growth for the sake of the nation’s youth (Thelin, 2011; Palmadessa, 2017). The growth of higher education overall—number of institutions and student enrollment—created a sort of golden age for colleges and universities, although this expansion was not without difficulties. Growing pains were felt by all institution types, and financial support was needed to ease the difficulties of the tremendous growth all while continuing to support enrolling more students who wished to pursue higher education. Shortly after the revisions in 1968, Congress began working on the next phase of support via the HEA. In 1970, Congress focused on two considerations: Continuing to support colleges and universities through financial aid programs and to extend educational opportunity to as many qualified individuals as possible. The resulting policy is arguably one of the most influential in the history of higher education, setting the standard for financial aid policies for the next four decades and expanding access to women. Another significant change facilitated by the 1972 amendments

70 

A. L. PALMADESSA

was providing access to not only four-year colleges through aid, but also inclusion of community colleges and all postsecondary institutions as acceptable educational locales for students qualified for federal aid. This shift from strictly higher education to postsecondary education had a profound impact on the number of students served and expanded the equal opportunity goals of the original HEA (Geiger, 2019). As the 1972 reauthorization cycle approached, the Nixon administration was already deeply entrenched in education policy, and Nixon recognized the sociopolitical perceptions of higher education in the wake of student protest and declining enrollments. As Litt (1974) found in a 1972 poll, only 33% of respondents had confidence in higher education, which contrasted against the results of 1966 when 61% of participants stated they “thought very well of American educators and their work” (p. 534). This reinforced the notion that “the golden era of higher education entered (sic.) [its] twilight” (Litt, 1974, p.  534). This is also evidenced by the Nixon administration’s willingness to make deep cuts to higher education. Budgets were slashed, and programs specific to land-grant institutions, Title III programs, and community development programs were reduced by Nixon’s administration, increasing nonattendance of lower- and working-­class men. Lack of support and rising tuition costs prevent the exact population that the HEA 1965 sought to support (Litt, 1974).

Title IX and the 1972 Education Amendments The issue of rising costs and how to support students through federal funds was at the forefront of debate between 1968 and 1972. As Doyle (2010) notes, “from the beginning of Nixon’s first term to the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1972 included some of the most public and heated discussions at the federal level regarding how to fund higher education” (p.  622). Ultimately, funding students directly prevailed as the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (BEOG) was established in the 1972 reauthorization. This program was extremely successful in supporting more students and was a political tool for congressional supporters (Doyle, 2010). Not only did this victory support students and leaders’ goals, but established that the role of the federal government in higher education was more important than ever before. Because tuition costs were on the rise and could not be controlled, the role of the federal government became a means to maintain “equal educational opportunity” by

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

71

providing “a safety net ensuring that no qualified student was shut out of higher education” (Mumper, 2003, p. 102). Through the BEOG 1972 amendments, a method to evaluate a student’s means was established. This test considered the total cost of attendance and a student’s family income to decide if a student is eligible for aid, and what kind—grant, loan, or work study support (Mumper, 2003). Furthermore, this aid was extended not just to students seeking four-year degrees but to students who attended community colleges or other institutions focused on workforce or occupational programs. Given the shift from financial support being allocated to institutions to direct support of students in 1972 furthered the goal of the original 1965 legislation to make higher education an example of equal opportunity for all, regardless of economic status (Hannah, 1996). The BEOG 1972 was first awarded in 1974. From 1974 to 1979, the low-income student enrollment increased as much as 40% due to the support of the BEOG, or Pell Grant as it was later named (Mumper, 2003). The increased federal financial support also came with more accountability measures. The Department of Education required institutions of higher education receiving federal funds to maintain records of use of funds and eventually required specific accounting standards across institutions (Hannah, 1996; Lane, 1978). Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 securing equal opportunity for women in college programs and activities was an important step in equalizing higher education for all. However, as most readily evidenced in intercollegiate athletics, opportunity did not automatically grant access. Further complicating matters were the dissenting voices, such as the NCAA, that argued that Title IX was harmful to colleges because it forced a reallocation of funds to women’s sports or sports women could play. The NCAA and the opposition were effective in limiting the reach of equality in athletics as institutions had a choice to either create a women’s team of any sport desired, or women could try out for men’s teams. Trying out for a men’s team was not an equal opportunity as the expectations of intercollegiate athletics are male-specific in structure, function, and economic support. Women, therefore, may be given the opportunity to attempt to join or create a team, but the women’s teams would never receive the same treatment as their male counterparts (Huckle, 1978). A significant challenge preventing Title IX from immediate success was the lack of regulations for accountability. Regulations were not in place

72 

A. L. PALMADESSA

until 1975 and were still not being enforced until the end of the 1970s. This results in little change, marginal effectiveness at best, and certainly did not facilitate equal opportunity for women in higher education (Huckle, 1978). However, once affirmative action was in place and the federal government had a means to support inclusion of women, the impact became tenable.

Congressional Debates, 1972 Tensions ran high during the 1972 debates. Tragedies in Vietnam and the general desire from the public for the conflict to end, the economic crises, inflation, increasing tuition costs on the one end and higher cost to educate student on the other created a volatile environment for congressional debates surrounding higher education funding and the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Additionally, one important issue central to the conversations surrounding equity and access was the issue of sex discrimination. Discrimination based on sex was prohibited by Title IX of the 1972 amendments. This applied to any educational institutions receiving federal funds, with the exception of colleges and universities dedicated to single-sex education, private or public, and military schools. An issue that was prevalent in the discussions was the issue of busing, as a means to integrate or more equally balance k-12 institutions based on race, gender, ethnicity, and religion. Arguments for and against the inclusion of this provision were based on redistribution of students for balance of diversity and whether or not busing or not busing would contribute to reverting back to a segregated education system. Ultimately, in conference in 1972, it was agreed upon to attach antibusing legislation to the HEA. This is complicated and an all too often means of pushing less popular legislation through the coattails of a popular bill. Antibusing would arguably revert the k-12 system back to a segregated system. Although there are implications for this provision for higher education—changing demographics of schools could help or hurt a student’s potential for college acceptance and enrollment; the 14th Amendment, and the Brown decision—this contentious point is noted and incredibly important but will not be discussed in this work outside of any direct relationship to higher education. Busing is most pointedly relevant to k-12 schools, not postsecondary institutions; although this provision caused delay in passing the 1972 amendments, the implications were not directed toward higher education. Admitting the issue before the House regarding busing was a

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

73

very important topic for consideration, as it was not an issue that belonged in debates about higher education legislation. Vocal representatives pleaded with their colleagues not to allow the difference of opinion regarding busing as legal or not, as appropriate for integration or not, to cloud their work on the HEA (Congressional Record, 8 March 1972d). Equity Equitable opportunity in higher education was far from resolved by the HEA 1965 or the amendments of 1968. The issues of poverty and race were still a challenge, and another dimension was added to the equity debate in 1972: gender. In this reauthorization debate, the equity category is divided between poverty and race, with women appearing as a minority population, similar or discussed as a marginalized population, occupying half of the “race” category of discourse in the floor debates. Controversially, the Ford Foundation published a report and was quoted in support of the effort of ending sex discrimination in higher education, “Discrimination against women, in contrast to that against minorities, is still overt and socially acceptable within the academic community” (Congressional Record, 28 February 1972c, p.  5803). This does not mean that race was no longer considered, resulting in discriminatory practices in higher education. Instead, it was considered, albeit incorrectly, a less pressing issue. The matter of race and equity was more focused on the desegregation efforts via busing in k-12 schools that was linked to the HEA by the Emergency School Aid Act initiated by President Nixon. This was frustrating for members who wanted to focus solely on higher education problems; it was not that the issue of busing and desegregation of k-12 schools was not important, but the controversy was taking away from Congress’s ability to focus on the charge for higher education: “It is regrettable that we should be diverted in terms of the basic purpose and grand design of this bill [the Higher Education Act] by the busing controversy” (Senator Javits, 22 February 1972, p. 5014). The challenge of poverty for students desiring higher education was not yet resolved and, arguably, became an even greater challenge in the early 1970s. It was recognized that the original HEA had addressed the issue of poverty in equitable opportunity for higher learning, but Congress has “not gone far enough” because there were still 60% of capable high school graduates not attaining higher degrees due to poverty (Sen. Javits, 22 February 1972, p.  5014). One attempt to add support was the

74 

A. L. PALMADESSA

inclusion of the “new program of basic educational opportunity grants, a new commitment that no qualified American student should be denied the resources to attend an institution of higher learning” (Senator Mondale, 24 May 1972, p. 18845). There were challenges to the position that claimed all who need money should receive it to attend college. Making a program such as the BEOG an entitlement would be costly, but was argued as necessary to achieve equity in higher education. Representative Green was an ardent supporter of the BEOG. Her position, and response to those who questioned the value of the entitlement was that this was not simply a financial relief; it was money specifically for higher education for those who are in fact qualified to participate, as the funds were for students already admitted to an institution. Representative Brandemas concurred that if a student was accepted by an institution of higher learning, that student was indeed entitled to that support, if needed. Brandemas also contended that for every student receiving a BEOG, the admitting institution should also receive support to ensure that institution can best serve students with the most need (Congressional Record, 8 June 1972f). Race was not a major topic in the 1972 reauthorization debate. In part, this was folded into the busing controversy, and by being immersed in a k-12, race-based conversation, race as a barrier to higher education was not a prevalent theme. For example, Representative Corman addressed race at all levels of education, and society, when he stated: If we had never had slavery in this country, we would never have had segregation. If we never had segregation, we would not now be agonizing over how to desegregate. How can we look at our present racially segregated schools, so destructive to human dignity, so wasteful of human resources, and say that we lack the wisdom, the compassion, the political courage to replace such a system with equal educational opportunities for all…More than the present is at stake. (8 March 1972, p. 7549)

In the social context of 1972, this is a reasonable explanation to the barrier of race and the preoccupation with race in policymaking debates regarding education. After the bill successfully passed both Houses, Representative Burke highlighted the efforts to address the barrier of race in higher education:

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

75

Our nation entered into the middle third of the 20th century bound to the past in the mores of caste and class. The white race, being the majority, was dominant while the Negro Americans, Mexican Americans, Indian Americans, Oriental Americans who were in the minority were given less than the more prosperous majority. Education beyond a fairly rudimentary point was largely determined by social status. However, in just a third of a century these circumstances have been extensively changed. (21 June 1972, p. 21750)

Although this excerpt is laden with racist labels, the perception presented is that race is not an issue in access to higher education by 1972. Instead, the greatest barrier for students seeking higher education was considered not poverty or race, but argued to be based upon sex, in 1972. Senator Bayh introduced a bill in the Senate to address the issue of equitable access to higher education for women. In 1971, it was considered not germane and died on the floor, only to be reintroduced in the context of revised, more comprehensive amendment in 1972 that was backed by measures in the House and Representative Green to end discrimination in higher education, President Nixon’s Task Force on Women’s Rights and Responsibilities, as well as the three Senators leading the HEA reauthorization, Senators Pell, Williams, and Javits. Senator Bayh recognized that the battle to include women in the quest for equity was not going to be easily won: While the impact of this amendment would be far-reaching, it is not a panacea. It is, however, an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs—an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work. (Sen. Bayh, 28 February 1972, p. 5808)

Senator Bayh argued that discrimination against women was at all levels of the educational process—from admissions to scholarships, policies regarding students, faculty, staff, and pay—and was a “social evil” that needed to be “root[ed] out” to rectify the “national scandal” of sex discrimination in higher education (Sen. Bayh, 28 February 1972, p. 5804). Senator Bayh legitimated his claim that the discrimination of women in higher education was a national scandal that impacted women in all aspects of life, given the fact that higher education helped secure better

76 

A. L. PALMADESSA

employment and higher pay for individuals who earn a degree. He argued that the “overt and socially acceptable” discrimination based on sex was rooted in stereotypes of women that considered them to be weaker than men, only attending college to find a man, and thus, if admitted to a college, they were stealing a seat from a more deserving man seeking a degree and gainful employment (28 February 1972, p. 5804). As far as admissions and scholarship, the discriminatory practices were complex. Senator Bayh admitted that the absence of women in higher education could be due to “sex-role expectations in our society,” not simply discriminatory processes and policies (28 February 1972, p. 5805). However, one area that was notably inequitable between men and women was in scholarship awards from the individual institutions, a policy and practice that could be addressed. The only way to end the discriminatory practices was to ban sex discrimination for institutions that received federal funds. This was an acceptable approach, Senator Bayh argued, because it was under the purview of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and thus enforceable (Congressional Record, 28 February 1972c). Access The inaccessibility to higher education due to financial status, as a barrier to attend, or a reason not to be qualified, was prevalent even after seven years of federal intervention, support, and assistance. This was unacceptable and was the duty of the government to correct this problem: “What about the capabilities of our educational system to meet modern demands? Must people who are meritorious and deserving be denied the opportunity to have a higher college education for economic reasons? We go a long way to deal with this problem. However, we have not by any means gone far enough” (Sen. Javits, 22 February 1972, p. 5014). One population that was particularly vulnerable in the early 1970s were Vietnam veterans. There were separate negotiations for a new GI bill, but members were not satisfied with the provisions or the speed at which the Veterans Administration helped these students, and sought additional support through the HEA reauthorization. This population of young people was returning to an economy that was struggling, and many were not adequately prepared in k-12 to pursue higher education before service, much less after their years of service. The prohibitive cost of higher education, coupled with extensive lack of preparation, added this group of potential students as a concern for the 1972 reauthorization (Congressional

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

77

Record, 28 February 1972c; 24 May 1972e). Many veterans who returned to the US and enrolled in postsecondary education also fit into the category of part-time and/or adult, nontraditional students. Including part-time and considering the needs of adult students was new in 1972. This led to further federal funding for non-four-year schools, namely community colleges and vocational schools, as well as expansion of financial aid to students who attended part-time, who often fit into the nontraditional category. It was noted that community colleges and vocational schools had been overlooked in the previous iterations of the HEA which needed to be rectified. Representatives Ford and Reid supported this change, adding that occupational training by any institution was important and warranted federal support (Congressional Record, 8 June 1972f). As a result, funding for new community colleges and expansion of existing institutions were added to Title X of the 1972 amendments (Congressional Record, 28 February 1972c). Community colleges were in need of support to grow and meet demand; given their low tuition costs and locations in communities in need of postsecondary education, job-­ training, and service, these institutions in their very cause created access for many students who otherwise could not afford higher education. Furthermore, flexibility in program types and admission policies allowed students who may be underprepared begin their college preparation or seek better employment (Congressional Record, 24 May 1972e). The creation of Sally Mae was an additional attempt to increase access for all students, regardless of financial status. As an added source of loans, with federal protections in place, middle-income students were the expected beneficiaries of this new secondary loan market. Supporters argued that this was a means to resolve the financial barrier for students in the middle—not impoverished and not exceptionally wealthy—from families with too much income for grants, but not enough to be able support their children’s college education (Congressional Record, 24 May 1972e). For the neediest students, the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG) program was an entitlement for any student who qualified for financial need, arguably closing the gaps left in the 1965 legislation (Congressional Record, 24 May 1972e). This was an important increase and revision in the quest for increased access. Representative Reid (8 June 1972) explained, “$1400 minus the amount of money that his family can reasonably be expected to contribute to the cost of his education. These grants are available to students as a matter of right, regardless of where he or she lives or goes to college, and they are not limited low-income

78 

A. L. PALMADESSA

students. Middle income students as well will be able to receive basic grants” (p. 20294). Representative Pucinski agreed, “It gives the middleincome family a break on sending their children to college. For the first time we extend student grants to a family that may have a middle income but finds itself hard pressed if it is helping finance the education of two or three children in the family” (8 June 1972, p. 20297). The argument for access was rather straightforward in the 1972 debates: More students needed more money to enroll in higher education. Those who needed support were students with financial need who wanted to pursue an education at any postsecondary level, two or four years, traditional or vocational. This did not require significant manipulation or positioning of discourse to encourage the opposition to support the revisions. At this point, there were more data available as to how impactful the HEA was for increased access; equitable access was still an issue that dominated the access debate, as indicated in the equity section above. The Nation Positioning higher education as a contributor to national welfare was an important discursive theme in the context of the Cold War, which was a major point of concern for the US, considering the continued and devastating conflict in Vietnam and the constant threat from the USSR. The US needed to protect and reinforce the identity of democratic ideal and world leader in the face of criticism on the world stage. The Cold War, continued domestic disturbances, and political upheaval in the US cast a negative shadow over the beacon of hope that was the great democratic experiment. In an effort to promote the education of women, Senator Bayh shared statistical evidence that suggested that the Soviet Union was less discriminatory toward women than the US. He presented data on female physicians, dentists, lawyers, and engineers in the USSR, as well as European nations, which far outpaced the number of women in these fields in the US (Sen. Bayh, 28 February 1972, p.  5809). Comparing the US to its ideological enemy, claiming that the communist state better supported a marginal population than the US, was a blatant attack on the nation’s identity as democratic world leader, a land of opportunity where all are equal. Senator Beall declared that the 1972 reauthorization met this goal: in the Nation’s history and in its education system, one can discern a steady, forward march in the extension and the expansion of educational opportu-

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

79

nities for more of our young men and women. This measure will be a giant step in our constant pursuit of the national goal of making certain that financial barriers will not prevent American youth from continuing their education. (24 May 1972, p. 18854)

Continuing this investment in higher education undoubtedly supported the nation’s position as “the American people have always believed that education is the well spring of national greatness,” as evidenced in the support of the HEA reauthorization (Representative Flood, 21 June 1972, p. 21747). To continue the success of the people and of the nation, the federal government had to financially support institutions and students to meet the more complex demands of the future. Without this commitment, the nation may find itself in a situation reminiscent of the Sputnik era (Congressional Record, 21 June 1972g). Representative Reid warned if the HEA was defeated, not only would the US lose the progress since 1958, but it would take a very long time to recover and renegotiate the value of higher education to the nation. Reid argued, “If we defeat [the 1972 amendments], because we disagree with various provisions in the bill, higher education may not have another chance for many years. We will be saying not now to several million students who need the Federal Government’s assistance to move into the mainstream of American way of life by advancing their education. We will be saying not now to over 2,500 institutions of higher education which have contributed so much and which desperately need our help. Congress, by its response today, may, in fact, be determining the fate of American higher education for many years to come” (8 June 1972, p. 20295). The nation will lose if higher education loses, referencing the loss of the Space Race was a powerful use of discourse to combat the opposition. With the conflict in Vietnam, risking any backward movement in the Cold War was not acceptable. After the loss in the Space Race, education became a focus to save the nation—this was not a moment to forget that narrative. Democracy Preservation of democracy or higher education’s ability to promote democratic ideals was not a dominant theme in 1972. Considering the historical context, the war in Vietnam, and the addition of women in the HEA, it seems fitting that discourses of democracy would in fact be prevalent for those in favor of the reauthorization. However, that was not the case.

80 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Democracy as a rationale to support HEA was present in the floor debates, but was not a key argument or position for supporters. Instead, references to democracy were from historical perspectives or were mentioned as a topic to be taught, not something that higher education could preserve or promote. Representative Cederberg supported the HEA and argued that the legislation was reflective of the democratic foundation when he stated (21 June 1972): “We are at a point where we cannot take education for granted…An American statesman once said, ‘All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy’. It can also be said that all the ills of education can be cured by more education” (21 June 1972, p.  21751). Representative Edwards made a similar observation, “It has been said that only the educated are free. Recognizing that there are many ways to become ‘educated’, I would add that only the educated can realize their full potential. Only the educated can completely shoulder the responsibilities of a democracy. Only the educated can enjoy the rights and privileges of a free society to the maximum extent. Only the educated can provide the leadership which the demanding present and the challenging future require” (21 June 1972, p. 21751). In each of these excerpts, democracy is something that secures the nation’s identity and can only be understood by those properly educated. The argument is not that higher education can or should promote or secure democracy; rather, people who are educated can enjoy the benefits of a democracy. This is a deviation from previous debates that positioned higher education as a means to promote and preserve democracy. The concept of education as a means to enjoy democratic benefits was connected to the desire to support higher education and students’ access. It was recognized that more education in the social sciences, arts, and humanities was important to helping individuals reach the goal of the American dream. This was important not only for individuals but also for the preservation of peace. These fields of study teach concepts that people can use to avoid warfare and increase understanding and the ability to communicate with others outside of the US’s borders. It was also noted that these fields of study were imperative, more so than science at this time, because scientific discovery led man to create weapons that could obliterate mankind. Social sciences and humanities could not only help make sense of this power, but also learn to appropriately harness that power. This was not a call to abandon science or technology for defense. Representative Cederberg (21 June 1972) noted that it was important to

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

81

continue supporting defense measures through scientific discovery. However, science and defense was not the only cause for additional and more effective education—it was just as important as supporting democratic ideals and preserving the nation’s commitment to its people. Pro-Education In supporting the advancement of the 1972 amendments, the shadow of the busing issue loomed and threatened to cause the bill to falter. This frustrated Senator Javits (24 May 1972), who argued that higher education was being demoted as a secondary concern in the HEA debates and the 1972 bill due to the attachment of the emergency aid fund and the controversial busing provisions at the heart of that aid. The importance of the HEA reauthorization was emphasized as “a significant advance in Federal support,” unmatched since Lincoln signed the Morrill Acts into law (Representative Brandemas, 21 June 1972, p. 21744), and thus necessary as Senator Dominick claimed that the legislation “promises much to a higher education system which, lacking innovation, could well become moribund during the next several years” (24 May 1972, p. 18855). The busing controversy did influence leaders who typically supported HEA legislation to vote against the amendment. This was a clear indication that the political maneuvering outside of HEA was a manipulation that could go either way—either push the busing rules through the coattails of the HEA or the busing could derail the HEA and halt federal aid to students. This was a risky move by the Nixon administration, and it frustrated members of Congress who worked on the 1965, 1968, and, now, 1972 legislation. Representative Green and Representative Abzug were two prominent female leaders who supported HEA and were supportive of the new provisions in Title IX in 1972 but could not reconcile the busing regulations tied to, but irrelevant for, the HEA. Representative Abzug pointedly stated, “I cannot believe that the women in higher education would seek to gain their rights at the expense of the public schoolchildren of this country” (8 June 1972, p.  20332). Senator Dominick agreed, “unfortunately, the emergent need for extending and expanding higher education legislation is being held ransom by a bussing controversy which is beginning to transcend reason. It is particularly unfortunate for American taxpayers, postsecondary students, their parents, and the postsecondary institutions themselves that the merits of programs authorizing approximately $18.5 billion will be overshadowed and threatened by a

82 

A. L. PALMADESSA

busing issue which was not even originally part of the bill” (24 May 1972, p. 18855). Even with the opposition pointing out that not only was the busing legislation problematic, but it did not belong as part of the HEA, the legislation passed and Nixon achieved his goal for k-12 at the expense of higher education. Senator Kennedy lamented, “Unfortunately, this amendment has passed in a climate of tension that we have not seen for many years. It was passed in that climate because national leadership failed last summer. At a time when the Nation was beginning to focus its sights on truly difficult issues of how to achieve quality education,” the President offered his perspective, ultimately supporting segregationists. “Not surprisingly,” Kennedy continued, “his stand was criticized by school administrators across the Nation who understood that the Nation was now going to turn back to the separate but equal doctrine,” a doctrine overturned by the Supreme Court on a number of occasions, since the landmark Brown decision in 1954. Unfortunately, President Nixon’s refusal to financially support additional desegregation efforts impacted “all of the amendments under debate and the symbolic attachment of both proponents and opponents demonstrate that it is not merely busing, nor education, that is being discussed. What is being proposed is that the Nation turn its back on the past 18 years’ experience in providing civil rights for black Americans” (25 February 1972, p. 5692). The Opposition The controversy over busing students to integrate k-12 schools polarized Congress. This was considered a worthy debate, but it was argued as inappropriately attached to the HEA as it was not germane to the HEA. Regardless, the reality was that the legislation was folded together, and the debate and controversy muddied the process of reauthorization of the HEA.  There is extensive discursive data on the issue of busing; although the discourse of busing and the connection of busing to the HEA are present in the analysis of the 1972 debates, they are not considered here as relevant to the provisions specific to higher education in the HEA debates of 1972. Thus, the focus of analysis and discussion of the opposition is on the discourse specific to the higher education provisions alone; busing is excluded. One point of debate focused on whether or not discrimination against women existed in higher education, and if found to exist, whether or not

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

83

it was an issue of civil rights. Senator Bentsen ardently opposed the existence of such discrimination, claiming that the presence of women’s colleges negated the idea that women lacked opportunity in higher education. Furthermore, Senator Bentsen argued, if provisions to protect women were included in the reauthorization, it would be damaging to the women’s colleges as they would be pressured to accept male students, eliminating the privilege women were given at the female-only institutions (28 February 1972). Consistent with negotiations regarding the HEA to this point in the genealogy, the role of the federal government in higher education was debated by the opposition. How the federal government executed the aid programs and whether funds were used appropriately were other points of contention in 1972. Senator Proxmire took issue with the “helter-skelter fashion” in which aid was distributed “unrelated to any particular goal” and in an uncoordinated system (24 May 1972, p. 18761). This led the Senator to claim that the policy was inappropriate and ineffective, arguing that the federal aid was not directed toward “students and institutions whose educational behaviors can most significantly be improved by these incentives” (Proxmire, 24 May 1972, p. 18761). Instead, he argued, the HEA programs were not properly prioritized, limiting their effectiveness and impact. The opposition was a powerful force in 1972. Coupled with pressures from the executive branch regarding busing, albeit not related to HEA, the debates were fierce. However, the results were overall beneficial for students and institutions. The resulting reauthorization extended most of the programs, with a few significant changes: Title IX, Title X, the basic educational opportunity grants, and Sally Mae. These were significant additions in 1972 that had a profound impact on the goal to make higher education more accessible. Given the contentious debates and difficult provisions in the legislation, there were controversial topics already set for the next congressional reauthorization in 1976.

1976: Reauthorization in Difficult Times President Ford signed the 1976 reauthorization near the end of his presidency, and in the shadow of the Nixon era. The nation suffered significant losses in the mid-70s, from the embarrassment of Watergate to the fall of Saigon, and the American public lost faith in the government and the institutions that supported national goals. Higher education was not

84 

A. L. PALMADESSA

immune to these concerns, and the public openly challenged the value of a college education from sociopolitical and economic perspectives. One economic perspective to consider from an equity perspective is financing. Nelson and Breneman (1981), in their study of community college finance in 1976 specifically, argue that “more than any other institution in the United States, community colleges have been assigned the task of carrying out society’s often-stated goal of equality of opportunity for postsecondary education” (p. 515). This is further supported by the claim that out of all of the institutions of higher learning, community colleges serve more underrepresented populations than their four-year counterparts in part due to low tuition and proximity to the students they serve. Low tuition is made possible by state and local funding sources, facilitating access to higher learning for low-income families. However, even though the community college is low cost and appeals to lower-income families, does that mean that the institution is in fact equitably serving students, and is the two-year college being adequately supported by the federal government to be that exemplar of equity and access to higher education? Ironically, Nelson and Breneman (1981) found that the low tuition and low aid model does not create a more equitable opportunity for students from low-income families; rather, increasing funding with rising costs in line with the four-year colleges will positively influence the federal government’s commitment to facilitating access through more aid to students.

Congressional Debates, 1976 Debates in 1976 centered around the allocation of student aid and the role of grants and loans. There were residual issues from the 1972 reauthorization, particularly related to desegregation of k-12 schools and Title IX, in addition to specifics within the new aid programs, the basic educational opportunity grants, and guaranteed student loans. A particularly important debate on the floor focused on vocational education. Vocational education, whether through community colleges or other programs, was considered a valuable asset deserving of increased support. As a result, the reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act debates spilled over into the Higher Education Act debates. This was not necessarily problematic as the efforts were related, and through the HEA, community colleges and students seeking alternate postsecondary training gained more support from the federal government.

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

85

Equity Equity in higher education remained central to the reauthorization debates in 1976. Supporters of the HEA programs understood that there was more work to be done to eliminate barriers of poverty and race in access to higher education. This could be attained through more “consistent and integrated Federal strategy” to achieve “equal education opportunity. We must create student aid policies that open to all students a broad range of options from which they can choose the one that fits their individual talents and interests” (Representative Simon, 12 May 1976, p.  13502). “Indeed, the bedrock principle upon which rests the entire Federal higher education effort is the conviction that no young person should be denied the opportunity to go to college for lack of financial resources” (Representative Brandemas, 12 May 1976, p. 13502). Central to the effort to combat the barrier of poverty, the work-study program received significant attention in this reauthorization. Issues were noted including institutions’ ability to arbitrarily alter student employment ignoring need, or declining a student further employment on campus after work-study calculated needs were met. As a result, supporters called for work-study to be a permanent program in the HEA and significantly increased the allocation of funds (Congressional Record, 11 May 1976a). Work-study programs for students once admitted were an important means of support for students to remain in college. Getting students through the barrier of poverty to open the doors of institutions began with the basic educational opportunity grant and the direct student loans. Each of these programs was threatened by lack of executive support, but members of Congress who supported the legislation were determined to not only prevent elimination but increase funding and make the grant and work-study programs entitlements (Congressional Record, 12 May 1976b). The guaranteed loan programs were also a means to eliminate the barrier of poverty, adding an option to increase student assistance for lowand middle-income families. For the low-income students, grant funds were not enough to support their education, making loans a necessary means to guarantee access for the neediest students. Also central to this effort in 1976 was the need to alter the family income indicators for qualification; the data used in this process were based on 1965 income data, not current income ratios. This was problematic as it excluded many students who would benefit significantly from access to the guaranteed loans (Congressional Record, 25 August 1976c).

86 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Race as a barrier was not as prevalent in the 1976 debates, but was still a point of concern expressed by members on the floor. Representative Simon reminded members of the House that it was the responsibility of the federal government to “achieve equality of the sexes [and] racial justice” through policy initiatives (12 May 1976, p. 13502). An anomaly in the discourse supporting the quest for diversity was presented by Senator Pell when he argued that institutional support also contributed to diversity, and therefore federal aid for institutions was imperative to meet this goal. Senator Pell stated, “the vast majority of our assistance to higher education is student oriented. However, some assistance is warranted to institutions that are growing to the point where they can make real contributions to the diversity and wealth of American higher education,” including institutions that were struggling financially (25 August 1976, p. 27682). Also new to the debates on race was the focus on graduate students— the lack of minority representation in graduate programs and in professional fields as a result. The objective of “equal opportunity for all our citizens will not become a reality until many more members of disadvantaged groups become trained professionals and managers, enter leadership positions in government and industry and join the faculties at our educational institutions” (Senator Brooke, 27 August 1976, p.  28180). This will take the creation of “programs to attract and support advanced training of minority members” who are needed “to remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination” and to “assure the unique perspective which minority members can offer in addressing the full range of continuing national concern” (p. 28180). There were three groups noted to be excluded from higher education due to attributes out of their control. One population noted as in need of assistance, and programs were supported for, were children of migrant workers. There were two programs, the high school equivalency program and the college assistance for migrant’s program. Each was scrutinized by the administration and the Labor Department, but supporters argued it was imperative to break the cycle of poverty for this population (Congressional Record, 12 May 1976b). This need was tangential to the effort to support “limited-English-speaking” students who struggled to enter and succeed in higher education (Senator Cranston, 27 August 1976, p.  28187). Second, equity in vocational education programs for women was also a concern. As noted, women in vocational programs were stereotyped as overly masculine or in the wrong field of study. As a result,

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

87

provisions were added to assist vocational education programs and institutions in educating their populations about sexism as well as designing new programs that attracted female students (Congressional Record, 25 August 1976c). More broadly, women were still not attending postsecondary programs at an equal rate to men, even after the 1972 provisions, and this was problematic in the effort to eliminate sex discrimination in higher education. And third, Native Americans were not able to access all aid programs due to the status of tribal schools, a narrow challenge but necessary to address to achieve equity in higher education (Congressional Record, 26 August 1976d). Access Access for those who are economically disadvantaged remained a core rationale for the HEA in 1976. Unfortunately, the economy was declining, making it more difficult for families to support students. Thus, “to make the dream of a college education reality for more of our young people,” the federal government had to commit “to do everything possible” to make this happen for “every American who has the ambition and ability to pursue” higher education (Representative Buchanan, 12 May 1976, p. 13505). The basic educational opportunity grants and work-study were the most important programs aiding students who were unable to afford higher education; TRIO and Upward Bound were also reauthorized to help those who are underprivileged by impoverished k-12 education. The grants were the “major Federal effort to open the door to higher education to the disadvantaged. We must keep that door opening wider” by meeting “the needs of low income students” (Senator Brooke, 27 August 1976, p. 28187). The metaphor of the door of access is used to push for further expansion of the aid programs. Senator Brooke recognizes the work of the HEA as a means to open the door but asks Congressional leaders to push that door even further by increasing access to even more students with financial need. Ensuring access for those who were economically disadvantaged was central to the goal of the HEA and was argued as the most important aspect of the legislation. Furthermore, the availability of funds was increased, as was the number of institutions in the US that worked with the federal aid system to improve access (Congressional Record, 12 May 1976b). As in previous debates, the support of middle-income families was argued to be of equal importance to the most disadvantaged. Although

88 

A. L. PALMADESSA

this group of students did not qualify for the grant program, they often qualified for the guaranteed loan programs, if the family’s income was properly calculated. Part of the challenge in calculation was due to the family income levels remaining at 1965 values, not 1976 adjusted values. Although advocates of increased support for middle-income students were adamant that not changing the income value kept deserving students from attending college, it was noted that the most support should be allocated to the grants for the neediest students as the best means to provide “economic justice” (Rep. Quie, 25 August 1976, p.  27709). Making funds available was not the only issue before Congress regarding middle-income students, but also the ability for students to repay their loans after college. In a recession, this was a concern for students, lenders, and institutions. Unfortunately, this also led to abuses of student aid programs, which ultimately hindered access for those eligible and responsible recipients. This prompted Congress to increase penalties for misuse of funds to avoid adding more financial barriers to those in need (Congressional Record, 26 August 1976d). Access to continuing education, vocational education, and baccalaureate education for individuals out of the traditional age range of 18–22-year-­ olds was a growing need that supporters intended to address in 1976. This meant that if access was truly a goal of the HEA, added support for part-­ time students and non-degree-seeking students needed to be a priority. Data suggested that this population was expanding as more individuals who did not have the opportunity to attend college right after high school were finding ways to take advantage of the opportunities offered by postsecondary education. This required “pinching pennies” to improve their lives, and Congress needed to provide “these people a share of the student aid we provide,” which was realized in the HEA reauthorization (Rep. Quie, 12 May 1972, p. 13504). Although some of the added support was realized through the separate, but related, Vocational Education Act, the HEA still had room to meet the increased need for this population to successfully access and pay for postsecondary education (Congressional Record, 11 May 1976a). Cooperative education was a newly funded program in the 1976 amendments that supported students with financial needs, without aiding students directly. The goal of the cooperative education program was to encourage institutions to make connections with business and industry so that students could work while in school, earning money and gaining job experience. Students were paid for their work by the businesses and

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

89

industries, not the colleges or the government. The financial gains were not regulated, and were helpful to any student, but the educational opportunity provided by students enrolled in higher education was of a greater value that better positioned them to enter the workforce after graduation (Congressional Record, 11 May 1976a; 12 May 1976b). Access to higher education via federal support leading to successful work and lives was ultimately a benefit to the nation and the recipient of knowledge. The Nation National welfare and power were supported by higher education, and this theme was utilized to support the 1976 amendments. In fact, it was argued that the nation owed higher education a debt of gratitude for the contributions it made by educating people to be positive contributors to the nation, making the extension of federal higher education policy a must. Our young people are one of America’s greatest resources. We have been recognized as a leader in space exploration, scientific research, mathematics, engineering and as we attempt to meet the challenge of our technological era and keep pace with developments in these fields we must keep in mind that to do so we must make a strong investment in education. (Representative Clausen, 12 May 1976, P. 13508)

It is through this support that Americans have a “fair opportunity to participate in the economic, political, and leisure aspects of national life. Each American must have the opportunity to fully utilize his or her potential by means of continuous educational programs” (Senator Pell, 25 August 1976, p. 27681). The HEA programs position Americans as the “best educated in the world…These are the people who will form the cornerstone of the Nation’s future” (Representative Biaggi, 25 August 1976, p. 27719). In these arguments, the equation of individual success to national success is utilized to reinforce the importance of higher education attainment in national power. After World War II, it was imperative to teach international understanding; the world was torn apart, and the Truman Commission called on higher education to preserve democracy and promote peace (Palmadessa, 2023). In the Cold War, communication between nations was very difficult. Understanding other nations’ policies was an important goal, but was arguably ineffective if people could not communicate. Thus, in the 1976

90 

A. L. PALMADESSA

amendments, foreign language studies was promoted as a means to continue national success on the world stage. As a way to ensure effective communication, the key to peaceful coexistence, Representative Rousselot argued: Never before in our Nation’s history has there been such a pressing demand for individuals qualified to communicate with the world community in their native tongues. Man’s destiny—indeed his very survival—is to an unprecedented degree dependent upon his ability to develop effective intercommunication in the family of nations. (12 May 1976, p. 13500)

This was important given not only the status of the Cold War and the war in Vietnam, but the future of the nation in all aspects—economic, defense, social. Thus, “the need for this legislation is clear; its importance obvious. For all the achievements of our Nation as we enter our third century, we face serious challenges and contradictions. The answers to the vital questions before us will come only if we are successful in educating the generation that must find those answers” (Senator Kennedy, 27 August 1976, p. 28186). Representative Meyner agreed, “I strongly believe that by providing qualified students vehicles by which to obtain postsecondary education, we are contributing to the health of the individual and to the health of the economy. It is our duty and our privilege to aid these young people” (25 August 1976, p. 27720). The metaphors in the post-World War II strategies equate the nation to a living being and anthropomorphize the economy as an entity that responds to influences similar to the human body. If the nation is thriving, the economy is healthy, then humans will survive and live enjoyable lives. The needs of the nation were also positioned as a rationale to support access to higher education for women. Women were highlighted as intelligent, capable, and talented individuals whose potential contributions were wasted by discrimination in higher education. Including women in the discourse of national representation and power was an important contribution of this reauthorization. Compared to other nations, women in the US were underutilized and their contributions were not recognized; this was a national travesty that needed to be rectified for women and for the nation’s status (Senator Percy; Senator Humphrey, 26 August 1976). “We have to get with it and get women involved, certainly, if we are going to be an example to the developing nations of the world to break down the stigma against women” (Sen. Percy, 26 August 1976, p. 27979).

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

91

Democracy Democracy and democratic idealism were not major themes in the 1976 debates. When higher education and democracy were connected, postsecondary education was positioned as a means to support the government. Given the political embarrassment of the Watergate scandal and the downfall of Nixon, it is, on the one hand, not surprising that democracy was not a major theme as the nation was embarrassed. Yet, on the other, it was an opportunity to position higher education as a means to alleviate that embarrassment. In this excerpt, for example, freedom is inextricably linked to education, and higher education trains the leaders that ensure the survival of American democracy. If people are not properly educated, they cannot exercise “the responsibilities of self-government in a democratic society” (Representative Hold, 12 May 1976, p. 13507). Democratic idealism was positioned to promote access to higher education for women. Compared to other democratic nations, argued Senator Humphrey, women had far less opportunities in higher education. By discriminating against women in higher education, the US was turning its back on fundamental democratic principles, falling behind European counterparts in particular (26 August 1976). Comparison to the other, the enemy, was an effective discursive theme in the context of the Cold War but also in 1976, a way to reinforce how the US compares to enemy states. Pro-Education Higher education’s value to the US was not debated in 1976, rather what qualifies for support was a focal point in this reauthorization. This debate impacted student qualifications as well as institutional applicability. Most notably, the nontraditional age and part-time student were new considerations. The number of students seeking some form of postsecondary education over the traditional age of 18–21 was a growing population. In fact, the traditional population constituted half of college enrollment, whereas one-third was over 25 and approximately 10% were over 35, making this group the fastest growing student population. The nontraditional student often supported a family, attended part-time, was already in the workforce, and may or may not be seeking a degree. The adult, nontraditional, part-­ time student was “generally more needy…and discriminated against in tuition rates and the application of aid” (Representative Simon, 12 May

92 

A. L. PALMADESSA

1976, p.  13504). These students, supporters argued, deserved similar equity and access measures to promote national growth, economic advancement, and personal success that qualifying traditional student received from federal programs. How to support students in vocational programs, and whether or not to increase support to community colleges and add vocational and technical schools to the list of institutions eligible for federal aid, was a point of debate. Representative Quie positioned student demand as the rationale for including additional postsecondary institutions when he argued that it was the responsibility of Congress to “support excellence and to help achieve more equal opportunity for every qualified individual to pursue the type of education that most fits his or her needs and motivations” (12 May 1976, p.  13498). Senator Hathaway echoed these sentiments and added that because of the demand and need of this growing population of students, the “very limited Federal effort in this area—limited in scope as well as in dollars—has been virtually ignoring the greater part of the need for the development and replication of more extensive continuing education programs” and “lifelong learning” (26 August 1976, p. 27956). The institutions that provide these programs were incredibly important given the rise in unemployment in 1976, the changes in technology, and need to train mid-career workers for new jobs and fields. Given that community colleges were the site of most of these programs, it was imperative that the government recognize this value and support the institutions via federal higher education funding (Congressional Record, 25 August 1976c). Reference to previous legislation, and related legislation, was an important strategy for supporters of the bill. The Vocational Education Act, the original Higher Education Act, the National Defense Education Act were popular references, and included in the reauthorization package. As a result, supporters argued that there was no need to legitimate the reauthorization: “The need for this legislation is clear; its importance, obvious. For all the achievements of our Nation as we enter our third century, we face serious challenges and contradictions. The answers to the vital questions before us will come only if we are successful in education the generation that must find those answers.” In fact, “our national security rests as much on improving the quality of our schools as it does on adding more weapons to our nuclear stockpile. We have made considerable progress in the past decade in defining a major role for Federal assistance in improving education to young people” (Senator Kennedy, 27 August 1976, p. 28186).

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

93

The Opposition Disagreements as to how to address abuse of aid, how to best help middle-­ income families, and income criteria for grants were present in the debates, but were minimal and limited. These were points of consideration valued as important, but where exactly to draw the lines and limits was debated. This was related to an important consideration of the unintended consequences of how aid was allocated and the long-term effect on diversity in private versus public colleges and universities. Senator Hathaway was most vocal about this concern, arguing that even though it was not the intent of the federal aid programs to be biased in their assistance to public versus private colleges, it was evident in practice. This created a “prima facie case of public policy discrimination against [the private colleges] under the current student aid program” that arguably not only threatened the abandonment of “a large part of our Nation’s intellectual heritage” (Sen. Hathaway, 26 August 1976, p. 27964). If the policy program continued to “channel low-income students into cheaper public colleges and universities…we will unwittingly be creating once again a system where some schools become educational ghettoes, while others are the province only of the rich” (Sen. Hathaway, 26 August 1976, p. 27964). Challenges to specific program funding was directed toward the value of liberal education versus workforce preparation. These criticisms favored workforce development, by means of attacking the premises of liberal education. Critics also argued that the focus on liberal programs were actually a political ploy to alter the fabric of American society. Representative Holt was particularly opposed to funding foreign language programs, as an example of a program that, she argued, took funding away from basic educational programs, such as literacy, that was more relevant to the success of the nation and its workers than learning another language. Representative Holt pointedly argued: The academic elite will tell you that they have achieved great things in social adjustment, which cannot be measured, but the parents and taxpayers generally are wondering why the youngsters are incompetent in the skills that really matter. There is no need for a new Federal program to assist foreign studies and language development, but the liberal elitist establishment of this Nation is overjoyed at the prospect. Here is money they can use to indoctrinate students in the philosophy of world government…the academic elite is on a one-world craze, proposing a ‘new world order’ in which the United Nations and the World Court would have greater authority over

94 

A. L. PALMADESSA

our lives…these international organizations are dominated by Communist and third world countries that are hostile to America and to our ideal of individual freedom. (12 May 1976, pp. 13507–13508)

The assumption that the professorate could create such a movement is not only laughable; it is a misguided stereotype reminiscent of the Red Scare and McCarthyism. It is, however, unfortunate that voices such as these are representative of their constituents and influence policymakers. The amendment Representative Holt references only calls for supporting institutions in developing foreign language programs, which, supporters argue, encourage communication between nations (Congressional Record, 12 May 1976b). Regardless, there are those who consider vocational education as a complement and added option, and those who deem it as superior to traditional college programs. In promoting vocational education as an added benefit and as a response to modern needs, Senator Hathaway posits that vocational education is a natural development in the postsecondary sector that is responding to technological and market demands. This, he argues, is not to replace traditional college education but to enhance the education and lives of individuals. However, the discursive strategy he uses is to criticize those who still favor liberal education is laden with maligned language: I realize that liberal arts professors and administrators have become hypersensitive in recent years to what they consider the ‘careerism’ movement in higher education. It challenges, to hear some tell it, the right of every individual to listen to great music or read a good book. They fear an anti-­ intellectual approach to education that will stifle creativity that will create, in the words of one educator (sic.), ‘specialty idiots, who pursue job credentials at the expense of learning’. The ‘higher’ in higher education, they cry, will soon have to be spelled ‘hire’. (Sen. Hathaway, 26 August 1976, p. 27964)

These liberal educators, Hathaway continued, must consider that “in this country, in this decade,” education “must be able to take account of and educate for, both the complexity of the world outside the ivy-covered towers and the speed with which the world is constantly changing…education will have to adapt itself” (26 August 1976, p. 27964). This claim was buttressed by “recent headlines detailing the failure of many of our educational institutions to adequately prepare individual students for the

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

95

world outside their doors” (p. 27965). This was a problem even for those who held baccalaureate degrees but remained unemployed because they were “ill suited to the real needs of the American job market…the recent polarization of the debate about careerism in American education has obscured some essential facts about the needs of the American job market” and the ability of colleges and universities “to prepare students to meet those needs. Thus far, the arguments have taken on ‘dancing angels’ quality,” focusing on whether or not vocational education was a plot to “deny the benefits of great books to American students, in favor of comprehensive skill training in auto mechanics. I would find this whole argument amusing, if its participants did not seem to take themselves so seriously” (p. 27965). Instead, Senator Hathaway argued, liberal professors were in fear of losing their jobs if career education was deemed more practical and better supported by federal higher education policy. This, the professoriate was argued to fear, would discourage students from seeking a four-year degree (26 August 1976).

Sexism and Vocational Programs: The 1976 Amendments The 1976 amendments to the HEA continued the effort to make postsecondary programs more accessible to women. In this revision, vocational education programs were charged with the duty of combatting sex-based stereotypes in programs designed to lead to employment. In other words, curriculum and offerings for any program could not exclude women and should support or reinforce women’s interest in fields considered to be jobs for men, such as plumbing. This iteration also required institutions to provide more detailed information to students about available aid packages, with guidelines established by the federal government. Relieving barriers of sexism and providing more information regarding financial aid not only supported increased access but also fed the consumer-student mentality that emerged in the latter half of the 1970s (Swagler, 1978). Shortly thereafter, the 1978 Supreme Court decision in Bakke brought a renewed attention to equity in access to higher education. Although often considered under the umbrella of affirmative action as it is a case regarding affirmative action in admissions (Rhoads et  al., 2005), the Court’s decision does impact financial aid and support legislation by reinforcing desegregation efforts solidified in public policy, further influencing

96 

A. L. PALMADESSA

efforts to increase access to higher education for marginal groups through the HEA and the reauthorizations to follow. Rhoads et al. (2005) posit that the Bakke decision was made possible in part by the liberal movement to increase financial aid for underrepresented and disadvantaged students; however, the Court’s decision revealed a policy issue that was deeply embedded in the fissures between right and left, conservatives and progressives. In effect, the opinion of the Court, presented in three parts, demonstrated a turn away from the reforms of the 1960s, a sort of correction in response to the “decade of unrest” (Rhoads et al., 2005, p. 202). This reversion to pre-1965 thought regarding access and financial support was evident in the Carter administration’s efforts to support middle-­ income and more affluent families’ desire for their children to continue their education. The 1978 Middle Income Assistance Act was positioned as the answer to the BEOG’s shortfalls, but moved the focus of assistance away from the most marginalized individuals, fulfilling the Carter agenda to support middle to affluent students and their families.

The Middle Income Assistance Act of 1978 However successful, Pell funds could not keep up with tuition increases at the end of the 1970s, and more support was needed. This led to an increase in loan awards over grants, moving the loans from an additional support for low-income students to a means for students of low- and higher-low-income groups to gain access to higher education and debt (Mumper, 2003). In 1978, the need for more federal support for access to higher education for more income-level groups prompted President Carter to support the Middle Income Student Assistance Act (MISAA 1978) to extend similar financial opportunities to students from middle-income families (Doyle, 2010), ultimately removing family income level as a criterion for federal support (Hannah, 1996). President Carter supported increased access to higher education, but the focus of his policy was extending opportunity to middle-income families, not the most disadvantaged. From 1974 to 1979, low-income student enrollment in higher education increased between 20 and 40%. However, with inflation, BEOG was not sufficient for many students, regardless of income status. The Stafford Loans helped higher-­ income students meet their goals, but the lower-income and middle-­ income students were in need of additional aid (Mumper, 2003). Carter’s resolution for this challenge was the Middle Income Student Assistance

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

97

Act of 1978 (MISAA 1978). This increased the number of students eligible for and attending colleges and universities through federal subsidized loans (Mumper, 2003) and demonstrated a significant shift in purpose of the government’s financial support from access for the disadvantaged to affordability for all (Gilbert & Heller, 2013). MISAA 1978 set the stage for the transition to support middle-income over low-income students through the 1980s, significantly impacting equity in access to higher education. The change in policy, coupled with a sharp increase in tuition and decline in total funding for Pell Grants in the early 80s, created a trifecta of barriers. Students from low-income families were “left with no choice but to take out student loans or give up on their dreams of a higher education [as] some low-income students are hesitant to borrow,” and for many who do borrow, they “will have a more difficult time repaying the loans later” (Mumper, 2003, p.  106). This tripartite challenge was further exacerbated by the revocation of affirmative action admissions policies that helped the most disadvantaged access higher education, and, as a result, either could not attend college or attended less prestigious institutions, resulting in less prestigious socioeconomic gains. These financial barriers and difficult institutional policies prevented as much as 48% of low-income students capable of collegiate education (Mumper, 2003).

Difficulties Ahead: Challenges for the 1980s One group of students not specifically supported by the HEA in 1965, 1968, 1972, or 1976 was the increasing Latino student population. This group was not ignored or unnoticed in American politics in the 1960s and 1970s; Johnson and Nixon were both keenly aware of the need of this particular population to have a means to achieve the American Dream, with higher education being one such avenue. For Johnson, this was due to a familiarity as a teacher in Southwest Texas, and for Nixon, this was a population he saw as an unaffiliated and potential voting block to support Republican policies if given support via social programs. Regardless of recognition or for what purpose, the need was noticed, but not directly supported in reauthorizations or new policies in the 1960s or 1970s (MacDonald et al., 2007). The prospects for change or expansion to more marginalized groups were sparse, as exemplified in the MISAA 1978. This legislation, as noted above, caused a significant shift in the target population for the federal government to support, and discouraged many from

98 

A. L. PALMADESSA

seeking assistance to attend college due to the inability or desire to take on an inordinate amount of debt. This transition from aid for the most in need to aid for anyone willing to assume debt was a significant shift away from the intentions set forth in 1965. From 1965 to 1978, the intentions were quite clear: help more people go to college, regardless of financial status, gender, race, or religion. Unfortunately, this goal was abandoned at the end of the 1970s, with no indication of recovery in the near term. Rather, the next administration would use this shift to its advantage at the federal policy level, in economics and in education. Even with a total of 439 federal programs supporting higher education in US as of 1978, there was no clear national plan for the future of federal higher education policy. The newly minted Department of Education also lacked direction and obvious role in higher education. Each of these points further frustrated state systems, education associations, and various institutions as they could not create a plan to approach policy concerns with representatives, causing more strain between the academic community and the federal government. For this to improve, and for higher education and students to be better supported, Lane (1978) argues that the higher education community needs to do three things to promote a positive relationship between higher education and the federal government: First, “help government officials understand…the pluralism and diversity of American higher education” as “long-term understanding could substantially influence higher education policy-making in state capitals and in Washington” (p.  144); second, institutional leaders must articulate the purpose of higher education, propose legislative action, and communicate with national representatives; third, understand, articulate, and document the costs incurred through meeting federal regulations and seek reimbursement to offset costs that impact the relationship (Lane, 1978). Welcoming this level of involvement with the federal government, however, is contested, as many higher education leaders warn of involvement in partisan affairs and fear that private standards will overtake the public utility of higher education (Moynihan, 1975). As the 1980s approached, the political context was shifting, and there were concerns as to whether or not what was best for higher education, versus political interests alone, would prevail in the next reauthorization. As Murray argued in 1976, “To understand the politics of higher education, the question is not what generates or shapes higher education policies, but who. Politics, by this view, is not a contest of abstract social forces; nor is it simply a matter of knowing what formal government agency or

4  REAUTHORIZATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS, 1968–1976 

99

official legislative committee is involved. Rather, it is a highly complex contest of individuals and groups pursuing diverse goals of self interest” (p. 83). Corroborating this concern, Doyle (2010) noted that by the end of the 1970s, “Federal involvement was slowly becoming federal control, although this occurred without any party actually intending it to be so. The intrusion of the federal government onto institutional autonomy would become the basis for many of the more ideological political debates to come” (p. 623).

References Baptiste, H. P., Orvosh-Kamenski, H., & Kamenski, C. (2004, Winter). American presidents and their attitudes, beliefs, and actions surrounding education and multiculturalism: A series of research in educational policy, fifth installment. Multicultural Education, 2004, 34–47. Barros, F. J. (1968). Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. The Journal of Negro Education, 37(3), 310–315. Chalmers, E. L., Jr. (1971). The reconstruction of higher education. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 38(4), 505–513. Doyle, W. R. (2010). U.S. Senator’s ideal points for higher education: Documenting partisanship, 1965–2004. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(5), 619–644. Eckert, E. (2022). Student Affairs Crisis Management at Kent State in 1970: 50 Years Later. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, ISSN: 1949-6591 (print)/1949–6605 (online), https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022. 2088291 Geiger, R. (2019). American higher education since World War II: A history. Princeton University Press. Gilbert, C. K., & Heller, D. E. (2013). Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman Commission and federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2011. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(3), 417–443. Gooden, S. T., & Myers, S. L., Jr. (2018). The Kerner Commission Report fifty years later: Revisiting the American Dream. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(6), 1–17. Hannah, S. B. (1996). The Higher Education Act of 1992: Skills, constraints, and the politics of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(5), 498–527. Huckle, P. (1978). Back to the starting line: Title IX and women’s intercollegiate athletics. The American Behavioral Scientist, 21(3), 379–392. Lane, F. S. (1978). Government in higher education. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 33(2), 136–145.

100 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Litt, E. (1974). Liberty above equality: The counterreformation in higher education policy. The American Behavioral Scientist, 17(4), 531–544. MacDonald, V. M., Botti, J. M., & Clark, L. H. (2007). From visibility to autonomy: Latinos and higher education in the U.S., 1965–2005. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 474–504. McElroy, E. J., & Armesto, M. (1998). TRIO and Upward Bound: History, programs, and issues—Past, present, and future. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 373–380. Moynihan, D.  P. (1975). The politics of higher education. Daedalus, 104(1), 128–147. Mumper, M. (2003). The future of college access: The declining role of public higher education in promoting equal opportunity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585, 97–117. Murray, M. A. (1976). Defining the higher education lobby. The Journal of Higher Education, 47(1), 79–92. Nelson, S. C., & Breneman, D. W. (1981). An equity perspective on community college finance. Public Choice, 36, 515–532. Palmadessa, A. L. (2017). American National Identity, Policy Paradigms, and Higher Education: A History of the Relationship between Higher Education and the United States, 1862–2016. Palgrave Macmillan. Palmadessa, A. L. (2023). American Superiority, Democratic Idealism, and the Truman Commission: A Critical Discourse Historical Analysis of Higher Education for American Democracy. Peabody Journal of Education, 98(3), 284–300. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/ 0161956X.2023.2216080 Rhoads, R. A., Saenz, V., & Carducci, R. (2005). Higher education reform as a social movement: The case of affirmative action. The Review of Higher Education, 28(2), 191–220. Sandalow, T. (1975). Racial preferences in higher education: Political responsibility and the judicial role. The University of Chicago Law Review, 42(4), 653–703. Shaw, P. (1971). The politics of reform in higher education. College English, 33(3), 294–303. Swagler, R.  M. (1978). Students as consumers of postsecondary education: A framework for analysis. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 12(1), 126–134. Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wilson, D. A., & Moore, M. L. (1973). Education costs, human capital theory, and tax policy. Business & Society, 14(1), 13–18.

CHAPTER 5

Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act for A Nation at Risk in the 1980s

The transition from the 1970s to the 1980s was a difficult period for progressive policymakers (Mumper, 2003). There was a conservative turn not only in politics, but socially as well. After the tumultuous 1970s, when the value of higher education was challenged but access was increased, the 1980s brought a revision to who should have access, a reflection of the changing political and social landscape that favored privatization and a focus on profitability (Geiger, 2019). The Vietnam-era protests and calls for equality and peace were no longer the norm, and economic constraints and a hostage crisis in Tehran dominated the socio-political consciousness. The end of President Carter’s term in office and the victory of President Reagan’s conservative campaign would have far-reaching implications for the policy landscape as a whole and facilitated a significant shift in access policy for higher education. As of 1980, the most disadvantaged students would suffer the most from the rising cost of tuition and changes in policy over the next decade (Mumper, 2003). Further complicating policymaking in favor of student access was the focus on university research for profit. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 provided researchers the ability to use federally funded research findings for commercial profit; professors were granted the opportunity to patent their work for personal and institutional gain. The provisions set forth by the Bayh-Dole Act directly impacted the research culture of universities, making economic development a priority in university labs (Geiger, 2019). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. L. Palmadessa, Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43706-9_5

101

102 

A. L. PALMADESSA

This transition was supported by other legislative actions, demonstrating a new focus on higher education at the federal level: profitability (Palmadessa, 2014). Technology transfer and intellectual property dominated the policy scene in the early 1980s, removing focus from the social purpose of higher education and reflecting the economic focus of the conservative shift in federal policy more broadly. Not only did the focus change, but the relationship between higher education and the federal government became an uneasy partnership. With the new legislative focus, the federal government managed to become entangled with the daily operations and functions of universities, something many institutional leaders and Congressional members did not condone. However, by the end of the 1980s, the federal government prevailed, remaining deeply entrenched in the functions of higher education as almost one-third of higher education funding was allocated by the federal government (Doyle, 2010). With a focus on research for profit and a lack of focus on social policy for equality of opportunity, federal expenditures on higher education access waned in the 1980s. Tuition costs were rising, but the Reagan administration did not support increasing student aid to meet the increased cost of attending higher education. This forced many students to turn to loans as a means to have access to colleges, and this disproportionally impacted minority populations as the most at risk were the least likely to assume extreme levels of debt. This resulted in far fewer students of color achieving college degrees in the 1980s (Baker & Velex, 1996).

The Reagan Administration President Reagan’s legacy is that of a storyteller. He was an excellent communicator and used his skills to reach the American public and create an image of the US that was positive, both in and outside of the US.  His vision was meant to instill a sense of hope and optimism that stemmed from the past, was exhibited in the present, and connected to the future. However well-crafted this identity was, the internal, domestic truth of the Reagan administration’s policies was not a story of support and justice for the American people. He undercut civil rights efforts, welfare reforms, school desegregation, and affirmative action, all policy areas that disproportionately impacted impoverished individuals and people of color (Baptiste et al., 2005). President Reagan and Secretary of Education Bell took a different approach when considering the role of education, including

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

103

postsecondary education, in the United States. What the new president considered to be a failing institution was accused to be one rationale for the continued threat of the Soviet Union, among other dangers whether real, imagined, economic, or military. Reminiscent of the post-Sputnik crisis and the resulting NDEA 1958 that targeted education with the goal of improving an institution that failed the nation by allowing Soviets to orbit space first, Reagan declared that the nation was at risk, and the risk was due to failures in education, a detriment he not only intended to analyze but correct during his presidency. Secretary Bell’s commission issued a summative report, A Nation at Risk (1983), outlining the faults within American education at all levels. Federal Commissions Regarding Education The National Commission on Excellence in Education released its report in April of 1983. The committee was chaired by University of California President-­Elect David Gardner and was comprised of education leaders from all levels and roles—from teachers to administrators, university professors, governors, community college representatives, and consultants. The commission was charged in 1981 to “examine the quality of education and the United States and to make a report to the Nation” as Secretary Bell was concerned by “public perception that something is seriously remiss in our educational system” (US Department of Education, 1983, p. 1). In the opening statement, the writers of the report claim that the nation has lost its position of dominance in the world order due to the “rising tide of mediocrity” in schools and colleges that “threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” (p. 3). This erosion of education at all levels in the US is likened to a war, claiming that if such low standards were imposed by an outside force, it would be considered an act of war. This war is reminiscent of the early Cold War Space Race, claiming that the reason the US was falling behind was because education was not properly supported; “we have…squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge…committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” (p. 3). This disarmament applies to industry and technology as well as moral and intellectual capabilities of the American people, a most dangerous position, as these are the skills that the commission argued maintains a democratic culture and preserves freedom. This, in turn, challenges the American dream, a foundational concept supported by American education, that assures all individuals that

104 

A. L. PALMADESSA

they have the opportunity to succeed no matter their status—race, class, or income (p. 3–5). The data considered by the commission included comparative data with other nations, achievement and standardized testing data, literacy rates, subject-level competencies, remedial education needs data, and anecdotal or qualitative data from teachers, leaders, students, and other constituents. Analysis rendered concerning results that were of particular interest to the commission, given the new technological demands of society in the early 1980s. This growth and advancement in knowledge and technology had outpaced education; now, the educational systems and institutions were charged with catching up, meeting the demands afforded by the global marketplace (pp. 6–7). Recommendations from the report offers “practical recommendations for educational improvement” (USDoE, 1983, p. 1). Importantly, given the established risk, the analysis and recommendations covered all levels of education in the US but focused added scrutiny to education through the teen years, from high school to postsecondary education. The report found that the natural talents of students had not changed; it was the leadership, institutions, and processes that needed to adapt to the needs of the Nation to create a “Learning Society” (p. 10). Findings focused on four major areas: content, expectations, time, and teaching. For content, or curriculum, findings suggested that curricula lacked purpose; expectations were also lower for students, especially regarding the amount of work and requirements as well as measures of competency; time spent in classrooms was determined substandard in comparison to other nations, and what time is allocated is not used effectively; and teaching, heavily scrutinized in by the commission, was found to be comprised of underprepared individuals who are underpaid and ill-prepared by teacher education programs. Each of these issues, the commission argued, could be rectified through revision of content and processes, adaptation of expectations, better preparation and pay for teachers, and oversight to assure quality of education (pp. 8–14). A Nation at Risk is a controversial report that lacked substantiation and has been the subject of scholarly scrutiny. Importantly, the report references data, but that data is not presented in the report, immediately questioning the validity of the findings. The impact of the report was a series of analyses and critiques of the American school system, claiming that the inadequacy of the education American children were afforded was in fact a national crisis. Presidents Reagan and Bush continued the efforts to

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

105

invoke this crisis and blame schools for American failures, reminiscent of the Sputnik crisis. Ultimately, the outcome of A Nation at Risk was increased privatization of k-12 education through the voucher system (Baptiste et al., 2005). In 1980, The Condition of Education for Hispanic Americans (Brown, Rosen, Hill, & Olivas) was released by a special federal committee. The results of this study were devastating—the shift from grants to loans in federal aid programs prohibited most Hispanic Americans from attending college, further subjugating this growing population in the US. In 1983, this was brought to the forefront of national news when Texas was found in violation of Title VI of the CRA 1964, which prohibits discrimination against individuals based on race and national origin. Since Texas institutions had not considered the treatment of Hispanic students as a special population, based on national origin, and followed the appropriate procedures to secure equal treatment in higher education, the state was found noncompliant. Texas was not alone, as there were a total of ten states in the South that had ignored this facet of desegregation efforts. In the Hearings on Higher Education Rights Enforcement in 1983, it was declared that the Reagan administration was ignoring the civil rights laws regarding higher education by not enforcing the regulations through the Department of Education, as evidenced by the violation of the rights of Hispanic Americans in higher education (MacDonald et al., 2007). Senator Simon, chairman of the Senate’s Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, was particularly concerned with the findings of this report. As a result, Senator Simon charged the Subcommittee with researching how Hispanic students were or were not benefiting from the provisions of the HEA (MacDonald et al., 2007). In the Subcommittee’s report, Staff Report on Hispanic Access to Higher Education (1985), members found that colleges with Hispanic student enrollment of 20% or more were being grossly undersupported by federal aid, including TRIO funds and graduate fellowships. Thus, Senator Simon introduced amendments to the HEA in 1984 that aimed to better support the Hispanic-American student population and the institutions they attended. Senator Simon’s bill modified Title III to specify institutions with high percentages of Hispanic students, specific TRIO and graduate fellowships for Hispanic students, and a focus on teacher preparation under Title V for future teachers in Hispanic communities. This legislation failed in 1984 and was revisited in 1989 under Representative Bustamante’s leadership when he introduced the Hispanic-Serving Institutions of Higher Education Act of

106 

A. L. PALMADESSA

1989, which also failed to pass in Congress. Although the attempts in the House and Senate in the 1980s failed to support Hispanic-American students and institutions with large populations of Hispanic-American students, these efforts did lay the groundwork for the 1992 reauthorization, discussed in detail in Chap. 6. The 1980 Reauthorization: Confronting Barriers Through Student Support Decline in minority enrollment in the 1980s is attributed to the changes in federal aid policy under Reagan, coupled with rising cost of attendance. With Reagan’s support, federal aid shifted from a grant-based model to loans, causing students to assume significant debt if they needed support to attend college (MacDonald et al., 2007). This was exacerbated by rising tuition costs, inflation, and the unwillingness of the Reagan administration to raise Pell Grant funding. This was especially problematic for the lowest-­ income families and students, as Pell money was not enough, and taking on extensive debt through loans was not a comfortable option for these students. If work study programs were enough to counter the lack of grant money, some students from lower-income families, who maintained parental support (which was rarely the case in the 1980s and not a norm after the 1960s), would attend college. This, in effect, discredited much of the good work of the 1960s in making higher education a means to combat poverty and promote a better livelihood for any and all who desired higher education in the US (Baker & Velex, 1996). The 1980 reauthorization was very important the TRIO programs as two considerations for students’ participation in TRIO were established. First, the inclusion of first-generation college student as criteria to access the identified support services was written into the policy. This not only established first generation as a special status but also raised awareness as to how many families were previously prevented from attending institutions of higher learning not only by finances but due to lack of opportunities. This awareness or indication of first generation as a barrier to student success highlighted the racial and economic disparity at all levels of education and forced a reckoning of this challenge by creating a category of students and student support. Second, this reauthorization included provision of supports based upon academic performance. As noted, students from already disadvantaged backgrounds lack the skills necessary to succeed in higher education; as TRIO programs grew, educators and

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

107

supporters of college access became a more forceful voice in the public sphere and on Capitol Hill. This makes TRIO an integral part of advancing access not just to campuses, but while students complete their education. If there were not supports in place once disadvantaged students arrived on campus, the value of the financial aid would diminish, not due to lack of effort or ability but lack of proper preparation for higher learning, the fault of impoverished school systems and other barriers outside of student control (McElroy & Armesto, 1998). The 1980 Debates: Inflation, Fiscal Responsibility, and Budget Wars The debates concerning the 1980 reauthorization centered upon one major issue: cost. The US economy was struggling at best, inflation was out of control, and there was a public outcry to limit government spending to curb the financial crisis. This led to a serious divide in the Senate, in particular, as to the value of this very expensive federal program. Higher education as a benefit to society was certainly alluded to but the sheer cost of aid programs, to students and institutions, was hotly debated. In the House, their recommendations did not consider fiscal responsibility, increasing budget authorization for the provisions under HEA. When the House bill was before the Senate and aligned with the Senate’s version, cost was the most important factor for the dissenting members, not necessarily the programs included. A simple illustration of votes in the two Houses regarding the conference report on the 1980 reauthorization package is an excellent demonstration of where division was most evident: The House passed the report in a vote of 373 to 16 whereas the Senate defeated the report 45 to 43 (Congressional Record, 4 September 1980f). Consideration of programs under the HEA was not as contested. There were amendments that proposed significant changes, some of which were included in the final bill, whereas others fell flat on the debate floor. The new provisions included funding for international education, reorganizing the NDEA under HEA, and alterations to the grant and loan systems. The debates were fierce, and the report was sent back for a second conference; after significant negotiations, the two houses were able to come to an agreement, and the legislation was enacted on 3 October 1980. One change that coincided with this reauthorization was the transition of the Office of Education to the Department of Education, with the Secretary of Education now part of the President’s Cabinet (20 February

108 

A. L. PALMADESSA

1980). This was not a result of the HEA but was a point of interest during the debates as this gave an added level of oversight to the distribution of funds and attention from the executive branch. Arguably, this was an indication of the importance of education to the administration, including higher education. Equity Equity for the marginalized was a concern as evidenced by the continuation of aid programs funded directly to students. As with each reauthorization, the rising cost of tuition was a burden most could not take on, and student grant and loan programs were focused on helping those from low- and middle-income families. Title IV of the HEA housed the most important student aid program, the Basic Educational Opportunity Act. As an entitled program, established in 1972 and reinforced in 1976, this was the one program that could not be reduced by the budget committee as the appropriations were given special status for those in most need due to poverty. Given his dedication to the aid program, and work in 1965, 1968, 1972, 1976, and in 1980, the BEOG were renamed the Pell Grant in Senator Pell’s honor (Congressional Record, 24 June 1980c). The importance of the Pell Grant in the effort to make access more equitable was evidenced by the continuation of the program but also in the plan to increase the maximum award over the course of the next five years, an important consideration given the economic status of the country and the rate of inflation (Congressional Record, 28 August 1980e). Institutional choice for the most impoverished was also rectified in the package in the spirit of equity. Before 1980, students were not able to apply Pell money for private college tuition, only public institutions. This limited student choice and hurt institutions, as students were prohibited by cost and inability to use the federal aid to attend private schools. Although the aid packages were altered based on the cost of public versus private colleges, students were now given more choices to pursue the education they desire at an institution that best fit their needs. In addition, it was argued that allowing the use of federal student aid and institutional aid for private institutions increased diversity in student populations and institution types across the nation (Congressional Record, 28 August 1980e). The opportunity to continue higher education at the graduate level for low-income students was added in 1980. Under Title IX, members argued

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

109

that more graduate students were needed to meet the demands of the new decade. If national needs were to be met, any student with the ability to complete graduate work should be provided that opportunity, regardless of poverty or financial constraints (Congressional Record, 23 June 1980b). For the institutions serving significant numbers of disadvantaged students, defined as those from low-income families, Title III Part B was revised to include general operations support, not project grants, to these institutions. The rationale was that these colleges and universities were doing an incredible service to the nation because they “open the doors of higher education to the poor” and, by doing so, cannot raise tuition rates to meet operational costs while still fulfilling this important role (Senator Pell, 23 June 1980). The same metaphor is used for all institution types; however, it is ironic. The open-door concept used to argue in favor of community college eligibility for HEA funds is duplicitous, as the ‘open door’ policy of community colleges was already in place and was a rationale for critics to devalue the role of the community college in providing a traditional curriculum equivalent to the first two years at a four-year college. Although a discursive irony, it is an important change for the students who opted to attend two-year schools. Under the final provisions, community colleges, institutions with high populations of disadvantaged students, and historically black institutions were given minimum funding guarantees based on previous awards to ensure not only the institutional survival but the ability to serve the students that desire education at these institutions (Congressional Record, 4 September 1980f). Historically black institutions, however, received pushback in the 1980 debates. Senator Baucus argued that institutions that serve black students were given unwarranted preference under Title III, and this, he said, was in opposition to the concept of a color-blind funding program. Senator Pell responded that preferential treatment based on the racial composition of student populations was not a sole factor, proposals were funded under Title III based on merit of the proposal. However, Senator Pell countered Senator Baucus when he argued, “I think we would be remiss if we overlooked the important and unique role traditional black colleges and universities play in our system of higher education. They fulfill a national mission. They educate young people who might not be educated if those schools were not in existence” (23 June 1980, p. 16239). Concerning the claim that preferential treatment for the HBCUs negated an equitable opportunity for institutions to receive funding, Pell argued that although this preference was not a part of Title III provisions, they should be given

110 

A. L. PALMADESSA

special preference and support to enhance the mission of equity in access to the HEA (23 June 1980). Ironically, after this exchange between Senators Baucus and Pell, Senator Sasser proposed providing funds for Fisk University to add a public affairs program, arguing that such a program was needed for black American students to have equitable education in policy and matters of public concern. Senator Sasser noted that at the time of the debate, there was “no facility in this country dedicated primarily to giving black people an opportunity to learn the rudiments and refinements of public administration” (23 June 1980, p. 16240). This was imperative to promote leadership in black communities and for those elected to political positions at any level. If higher education was not available to more black Americans, then this segment of the population would continue to be underserved by the most liberating social institution, colleges and universities (Sen. Sasser, 23 June 1980). Other populations added in previous years’ reauthorizations were included in the effort to make access to higher education more equitable. Women, especially those interested in vocational programs, were a targeted group. Under Title I, provisions were made to fund postsecondary institutions’ “worksite development demonstration program” to support women’s transition from education to the workplace (Senator Williams, 23 June 1980, p. 16323). Additionally, funding was allocated under Title XIII to encourage more women to seek higher education. This funding supported employers’ and organizations’ efforts to inform women of the opportunities in postsecondary education. These efforts gave women the information they needed to “enhance their productivity and fulfillment in life” (Representative Buchanan, 28 August 1980, p. 23639). Adult, non-­ traditional, and married students were also populations addressed in this reauthorization. Each of these populations previously had problems accessing entitled aid and low-rate loans. Adult students often paid out of pocket for tuition, and many had the added responsibility to support families with their income. This had to be taken into consideration for any non-traditional student but also for married students who may, on paper, not immediately meet eligibility. Each of these populations were given consideration, and revisions to eliminate barriers to equal opportunity to student aid for these groups were resolved (Congressional Record, 28 August 1980e).

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

111

Access Access for those who cannot afford or are underprepared due to barriers associated with poverty remained central to the 1980 reauthorization debates. Through the newly named Pell Grant, student loans, and the reauthorization of MISAA, this commitment was reaffirmed with a total of 90% of the authorization monies dedicated to direct student aid (Congressional Record, 25 September 1980g). The impact of these programs was evident in the data from 1965 to 1980, supporting the claim that without these programs, millions of students would not be able to afford higher education. In 1980, with the dual burden of rising tuition in the context of skyrocketing inflation, it was imperative that these programs not only continue but be revised to best support students and their families. Thus, low- and middle-income students and their parents were the focus of these revisions (Congressional Record, 23 June 1980b). In this reauthorization, the Senate supported a parental loan program to further support access for those in need. Parental loans were guaranteed loans that contributed to the expected ability of parents to contribute to their students’ education (24 June 1980). It was also proposed that financial aid opportunities be the duty of college finance offices, eliminating bureaucratic oversight and difficulty of distribution of aid. The recognition of the complexity of processes to receive aid as a barrier to access was to be, hopefully, resolved by this change (28 August 1980). Support for students who were underprepared for college due to poverty-­induced deficiencies in their k-12 education was realigned for efficiency and more effective outreach potential. TRIO programs were reauthorized, and Upward Bound and talent search programs were included in the outreach efforts. And, additional funding under Title III was earmarked for institutions that served substantial numbers of disadvantaged students to better support these students when they arrived on campus. These institutions struggled to appropriately support their students and found it difficult to remain open in the economic crisis; if they increased tuition, they would no longer be accessible to their population. Thus, Part B of Title III included specific provisions to these schools as they “provide a special service to the Nation, for they open the doors of higher education to the poor” (Sen. Pell, 23 June 1980, p. 16234). In effect, institutions that provided access for more disadvantaged students via their own policies and goals, opened their own doors, were eligible for additional

112 

A. L. PALMADESSA

funds to support the effort to fulfill this national goal of open door access from an economic perspective. New to the support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds were intentional programmatic opportunities for rural students and for urban universities. Urban universities were in a unique position to serve their communities, with needs specific to urban centers. This was an opportunity “to tap into their unique capacity to promote solutions to urban needs, as did the land grant colleges for agriculture in the last century” (Sen. Javits, 4 September 1980, p. 24101). This argument is equating two very different contexts, and the coded language is an important discursive strategy. The Morrill Act of 1862 did provide a service to rural communities by using land that was underutilized and promoting studies that would help farming communities in particular. But this support of rural communities was secondary to use of land, and that support came in the form of technological advancement, not social problems. The ‘urban needs’ mentioned in the debates, by supporters, were code for poverty and minorities. The urban needs were relevant to the cycle of poverty, drugs, and violence, all major campaign points for Reagan. The urban universities, because of their locale, had access to the populations suffering from these realities. Universities could teach their students to apply knowledge gained in the community to help rectify these social ills, issues specific to poor minorities in urban centers. Support of rural students and institutions was a less prominent point of consideration but was not forgotten with the inclusion of urban university grants. This, in part, was resolved by criteria in Title XI that gives states without “a standard metropolitan statistical area can still qualify for the urban university grant program” to serve the specific needs of rural states (Representative Jeffords, 28 August 1980, p. 23641). How postsecondary institutions can increase access with help from the federal government was also a consideration. With the economic challenges and demographic shifts and less college-aged individuals in the post-baby boom generation, college enrollment would continue to decline in the 1980s. Planning for this decline and promoting higher education to those willing and able was important for the survival of some colleges, a means to boost the economy, and an opportunity for individuals to take advantage of access to higher education. The Commission on National Development in Postsecondary Education was established in this reauthorization. The purpose of the new commission was to analyze how all levels of government and tertiary institution worked together to increase access

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

113

to higher education and promote use of available funds to foster continued access through legislation and funding. Funds were to be provided to institutions willing to consider participation in the commission’s work, making more institutional aid available for the postsecondary schools adapting to the changing demands and demographics of society (Congressional Record, 23 June 1980b). Senator Javits summarized the pro-access argument when he stated the 1980s is “a period of uncertainty for both students and institutions.” This bill “responds to the need to continue the principal Federal responsibility with respect to higher education—to provide all students who wish to participate an equal opportunity, through the means of the basic education opportunity grant, to do so and through the instrumentality of campus-­based programs and the guaranteed student loan, to afford students a choice in the selection of an institution at which to matriculate” (4 September 1980, p. 24100). The Nation In 1980, the needs of the nation were of utmost concern to members of Congress. Between the fiscal challenges and inflation, the quest to increase international trade, a hostage crisis in Iran, and socio-religious tensions, the need for higher education to serve the nation was an important discursive theme in the debates; Senators and Representatives highlighted the relationship between the economic woes and declining enrollment in higher education. As an effort to meet the needs of the nation and the institutions, this reauthorization became a means to increase enrollment in higher education to support the postsecondary sector and ultimately boost economic returns for the nation. Positioning national needs as the needs of individuals continued to be an important discursive strategy in the debates as well. If students enrolled in college, supporting the institutions through tuition, the return on investment for the nation would also be a return on individual investment as students who complete college earn more, contribute to business and industry, and pay more taxes to the federal government (Congressional Record, 23 June 1980b; 23 August 1980d). Economic prosperity and independence were key to living the American dream; providing the means for individuals to achieve the American dream and support national goals was at the heart of the 1980 agenda (Congressional Record, 23 August

114 

A. L. PALMADESSA

1980d). Senator Dole encouraged his colleagues to vote in favor of this bill in September stating that: As we vote on the Higher Education Act conference report, let us keep in mind that, through the programs authorized by this legislation, we are making the most constructive investment in our country’s future well-being by encouraging the development of American minds and making opportunities available to students who would otherwise find the doors closed to their progress in the world (4 September, p. 24112).

The doors to higher education are the doors to international success; in this metaphor, success of the individual is directly linked to national success, reinforcing the importance of higher education to the position of the US among nations. International education was under the purview of the NDEA, although that was folded into the HEA reauthorization in 1968. In the 1980 proposal, it was recommended to realign the NDEA international education programs under Title VI into Title VI of HEA. This was in part prompted by the President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies, as the report gave recommendations for realignment and designated executive support for increased support for international education programs. Senator Stafford introduced the provisions under this amendment, stating that there were three premises guiding the support of international education: First, we face increasingly difficult times in our foreign relations and increasingly complex relationships with other countries; Second, education plays a centrally important part in preparing this country for a world of change; Third, it is in the national interest to promote both our analytic and linguistic capabilities for international affairs and our citizens’ understanding of our relationships to other countries and peoples (20 February 1980, p. 3214).

Ultimately, the purpose of this addition was to “reinvigorate the international dimension of higher education” and “help prepare American citizens for changes in the world which will affect this country” (Sen. Stafford, 20 February 1980, p. 3214). Part of the rationale was to improve international business through the connection between business and higher education. With the addition of economic support versus national security by moving the NDEA title to the HEA, Senator Stafford reassured those concerned that the expectation of higher education to assist in national

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

115

security was not lost in the realignment. He argued, “NDEA was conceived in 1958 in an atmosphere of emergency, as part of our response to Sputnik,” provisions that are no longer applicable. Instead, what was left “is principally the foreign language and area study programs” which have “served the country well” but were never supported adequately. Moving the NDEA foreign language and international education programs to HEA would resolve these inadequacies and continue the “strong national security rationale for these programs” as the realignment “reaffirms this rationale’s continuing validity, especially as these programs are needed to prepare people for foreign affairs analysis and diplomatic work, as well as to increase the American people’s understanding of events abroad” (Sen. Stafford, 20 February 1980, p. 3214). Since “events abroad have increasingly profound impact on all Americans, it is essential that education prepare our country for a world of rapid change…By bringing NDEA’s higher education programs into the Higher Education Act, this bill makes the internal dimension an integral part of our Nation’s postsecondary education efforts” (Sen. Pell, 20 February 1980, p. 3216). This urgent need not only supported the security of the nation but also “advancement and enlightenment which make every American so proud to be an American” (Sen. Javits, 4 September 1980, p. 24100). The nation’s identity and individuals’ perception of that identity were to be reinforced through higher education, a discursive and relational strategy important to promoting national dominance. International education was also positioned as a means to support the national economy. Senator Javits noted that an important feature of Title VI in the effort to “encourage the use of the vast resources and talents of our postsecondary education sector to improve our Nation’s international performance, particularly in the area of trade promotion and expansion, by forging linkages between the business community and higher education…which can result in the fulfillment of a critical national goal to wit: The substantial improvement of our international economic performance” (20 February 1980, p.  3215). To appropriately address the nation’s decline in international trade, the ability to communicate via other nations’ languages and intentional connections between the business sector and higher education were promoted. This was not a connection that either institutions or the business sector sought; rather the two remained separate. This was explained as an unspoken agreement, “based upon a general unwillingness of business to utilize the resources of a sector over which it has little or no control and concomitant unwillingness on the part of

116 

A. L. PALMADESSA

higher education to be dictated to…by the business sector. This legislation will improve the relationship (sic.)…with the goal of promoting American international understanding and trade programs” (Sen. Javits, 20 February 1980, p. 3216). Although this arrangement was acceptable in practice by higher education and business/industry, the will of those in power was to form a connection that would better suit national goals. Not only would the economy benefit from this connection but also the political system; more linkages between higher education, business, and other nations promote understanding and appreciation of national goals. In addition to the arguably measurable needs of the nation, international trade and the economy, there was recognition of the need to consider less quantifiable but equally important challenges to the US. Notably, the politics and cultures of other nations. Senator Chafee recognized the importance of educating America’s future leaders to understand that nations are made up of “‘human beings’ and also to discern a ‘common humanity’ among them” (20 February 1980, p.  3217). He argued this was of utmost importance from an historical perspective. Senator Chafee noted that after Sputnik, changes in policy for higher education encouraged science; he likens the challenges of the 1980s to the urgency of the Space Race but focused on international understanding and economics. This was something that the current legislation was promoting, as international education and international trade were a priority in this reauthorization. References to historical events with profound impact is an important discursive strategy when the value or potential contribution of the legislation is questioned. The Cold War was still raging, and the nation did not need another loss or embarrassment in the anti-communist effort; supporting the HEA was positioned as a means to prevent another setback in the Cold War. Through higher education programs focused on international understanding, national goals were supported. This was not a new maneuver for Congress, rather it is modeled after the spirit of national leaders after World War II. Thus, “in the spirit of our predecessors in education and in Congress,” this reauthorization reinforces the “mission of education to help each of us to see foreigners not as abstractions but as concrete human beings, with their own reasons, sufferings and joys, and to discern a common humanity among the various nations” (Sen. Chafee, 20 February 1980, p. 3217). If this goal is ignored, provincialism would prevail, and continued tensions would prevent national success among nations. Historically, the challenges in Southeast Asia broadly and Vietnam

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

117

specifically represent a failure in the US to understand other cultures. The discursive strategy of using history to provide imagery of what could be if change is not achieved was used to underscore the need for the US to better understand cultures such as the Muslim nations of the Middle East. It was argued that the unwillingness of the US to engage in an effort to understand the “history and beliefs of the Moslem world” was an indication of a willingness to return to provincialism, something that only the Soviet Union was still practicing. Separating the US from the USSR was imperative for national success and “if we are to exert a stabilizing influence on areas of the world with volatile problems” (Sen. Chafee, 20 February 1980, p.  3217). The strategy of comparison to other inferior nations and tragic historical events further connects higher education to the nation and thus the individual as a representation of that nation. Democracy Discourse of democracy was not a dominant theme in the 1980 debates. However, democracy-related themes and terms were employed to garner support for the reauthorization. One discursive strategy that supports democratic idealism is the comparison of the US to other nations and cultures. In this theme, American culture, systems, and values are positioned as superior and the reason the US is a leader among nations. Juxtaposing the US against polar political extremes, past and present, was a successful discursive strategy that paints an image of the US as a superior and envied state. Senator Chafee argued that higher education in the US needed a renewed focus on international affairs and cultures as “national curricula in parts of the world remain relatively provincial. Many societies from Sparta to the Soviet Union have thought it dangerous to study the ideas and customs of other lands, fearing that patriotism would be diluted through exposure to ways of life and systems of values not their own” (20 February 1980, p.  3217). In this statement, Senator Chafee equates Sparta, an ancient military state that stifled Hellenistic culture in the name of power, to the Soviet Union, a modern dictatorship with a specific culture and system of control. In an effort to avoid the fate of Sparta and the misery of the USSR, the Senator urged Congress to adopt the HEA revisions in 1980 to avoid such provincialism in US higher education. He argued, “Provincialism results in ignorance of people and events that are foreign to our shores. The dangers to America of provincialism has been vividly demonstrated by our unwillingness to compete for

118 

A. L. PALMADESSA

international business in the world arena” (Sen. Chafee, 20 February 1980, p. 3217). In this assessment, US economic status among nations depends upon increased understanding via education; if Americans cannot learn to compete with other cultures, the US economy will fail, and ultimately, the nation will falter. Senator Reigle agreed when he argued that for too long, Americans have remained ignorant of other cultures and have “felt that the rest of the world needs to look to the United States for new technology and expanding market opportunities for selling their goods. This perception…is not accurate today” (20 February 1980, p. 3218). The nation has faltered due to poor international market competition, no longer maintaining the status of an admired nation. As a strategy, this is a risk; the US is the beacon of democracy, is the leader of the free world, has the best schools, and has led the international economy without challenge for the majority of the twentieth century. Although the US position did in fact falter, admitting that deficit was not a popular strategy; instead, inflating the US identity was the best discursive strategy to garner support for the legislation. To salvage the nation’s democratic ideals, the rights of the people had to be protected. “Education is a fundamental birthright of every American” (Sen. Moynihan, 24 June 1980, p. 16408). If this is not provided for by the federal government, the American way of life is threatened. Senator Javits argued that the 1980 HEA reauthorization was the best way to attend to federal duties and maintain American dominance, as the bill “will help put us on a higher course so urgently required by the security of our Nation as well as by the advancement and enlightenment which make every American so proud to be an American” (4 September 1980, p. 24100). Given the fact that the “complexities of international relations are overwhelming” and “knowledge of world events” is part of daily life, it is of utmost importance that the government provide “equal educational opportunity for all its citizens. For centuries, America has represented to the rest of the world a land of possibilities, where talent and intelligence and diligence could go far toward achieving success within our society. We have always been careful to guard our freedoms, while pursuing our goals of progress…education plays an important role” and higher education “goes hand in hand with what has made our country great. We have always encouraged the development of the minds of our citizens, which remain our most valuable natural resources” (Senator Dole, 4 September 1980, p. 24111–24112). People as commodities to be molded, and the protected freedoms for human capital is equated in this argument.

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

119

Individual Americans are free, yet the government has a duty to shape their freedom in the best interest of the state. This is a win for all involved— from the individual to the collective society, to the nation, to the global market, every level of competition is supported by education. Countering the human capital position, from the perspective of the individual, “What this country means to its people is the freedom to be whatever one is capable of being…this act of Congress [the HEA] allows our people, regardless of background or income, to become anything they want to be…this act of Congress is government at its very best” (Senator Stafford, 25 September 1980, p. 27229). Pro-Education The importance of higher education and the relevance of federal policy regarding higher education was an agreed upon standard. The deviation in support was focused more on the investment in higher education and whether or not it was responsible for Congress to authorize a significant increase in higher education appropriations in the financial climate. However difficult the nation’s financial status, education at all levels received an elevated position in the federal hierarchy. In 1980, the Department of Education was created, inaugurating a new cabinet position in the Secretary of Education. Although not specific to higher education alone, education now had a voice at the highest level of the executive office, solidifying the importance of education as part of the federal agenda. The Higher Education Act of 1965 and its value to the nation and students in institutions of higher learning were lauded as the most important federal education policy, an offshoot and result of the NDEA 1958, making the reauthorization and continued funding imperative (Congressional Record, 20 February 1980a). Noting the economic challenges not likely to end soon, Title I was revised to include assistance to institutions suffering from the devastating economy and the changing demographics of the student population. Part of this effort included a new commission, the Commission on National Development in Postsecondary Education, aimed as an assistive program for struggling institutions further supporting the value of higher education in the US. Changes such as these were intentional and targeted revisions in “critical economic conditions of our times” (Senator Williams, 23 June 1980, p. 16323). As in previous reauthorization years, support for education stems from economic needs and

120 

A. L. PALMADESSA

goals, demonstrating the focus on power, money, and profitability over knowledge for the betterment of society, or simply, the public good. The economic constraints for individuals were exacerbated by rising cost of tuition. Tuition was rising; financial aid was not keeping up with inflation; and there were fewer people of traditional college age in the post-baby boom populace. Arguably, in an effort to maintain research activity, to educate more individuals to their highest ability, and to remain competitive in the international market, the federal government had to reinforce its commitment to higher education. The 1980 reauthorization was an opportunity for Congress to renew this promise, invest in the future of the nation, and assure current and future students that higher education was worth the cost and effort, and the government would continue to financially support those in need (Congressional Record, 4 September 1980f). Criticism and Opposition The 1980 reauthorization process was more contentious than in the late 1960s and the 1970s. This is somewhat of an anomaly given the elevation of the Office of Education to the Department of Education; however, the tensions due to economic decline with no end in sight and hostile relationships abroad landed the HEA in the crosshairs of opposing parties. The 1980 conference report reconciled 300 differences between members of the two houses. The compromises were difficult for both sides, and issues central to the disputes remained points of contest in the final presentation of the second, and finally agreed upon, conference report of the HEA reauthorization package of 1980. Also providing ammunition for criticism is the few institutions that did not meet the criteria for Title III funded projects. It is highlighted by Congressional leaders that some institutions failed to follow through with plans or did not assess the outcome of the use of funds, leading to a judgement that funds were not properly utilized; in some cases, this was accurate. To prevent misuse of federal funds, more oversight and increased assessment were argued as necessary and would be costly. Given the financial constraints, this point was debated as a cost-benefit—was it costlier to lose funds to lackluster projects or to invest more in oversight? This was a highly contested point that Senator Baucus was particularly concerned about, as voiced the opinion of like-minded colleagues: “It is my sincere hope that our discussion and the chairs accomplished in this legislation,

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

121

send a very clear signal to the Secretary of Education; that is, we will continue to monitor title III very closely to insure that the abuses we have uncovered, and discussed today, are not allowed to repeat themselves” (23 June 1980, p. 16240). Student loans and the role of banks, means tests, and the overall cost of the HEA programs were central to critics’ dissent. Reminding members and representatives of the mistakes of the past, particularly related to the relationship between banks and the student loans, was an effective strategy to involve members not always vocal on higher education policy matters. Instead, such issues and criticisms solicited the interest of members of the budget committees and those with experience in the banking industry. At the base of this criticism was the role of the federal government in the student-bank relationship, and what reappropriation of funds would do to the relationship and the expectations of the government (Congressional Record, 24 June 1980c). This was further complicated by inflation coupled with increased interest rates on loans (Congressional Record, 23 August 1980d). The debate concerning the role of banks, the federal government, and student loans was muddled by the transitions between Congress’s support of banks and/or support of students. Over the 20-year history of the HEA, and most notably since reauthorizations in the 1970s that expanded support for students above the poverty level, how students access loans and whether students or banks should have the highest level of federal support in the loan process was a point of consideration. Essentially, should the banks and their profits outweigh the benefits afforded to the neediest students? This was not only a question that was presented as in opposition to the 1980 provisions but a larger question in the scheme of government priorities (Congressional Record, 4 September 1980f). When the conference report arrived on the Senate floor for debate on September 4, 1980, the reauthorization was $2 billion over the Senate version of the bill, but well under the original House bill. To many on the budget committee, this was unacceptable. Congress had a responsibility to be fiscally responsible. Thus, how to continue the efforts of the HEA and be fiscally restrained manifested in a rejected conference report and an extended negotiation period. The disputes in this reauthorization cycle would not be resolved by the 1986 deadline. Instead, the economy continued to be a challenge in the arguments regarding appropriations of funds and what programs deserved the federal funds.

122 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Inflation and Fear: The 1986 Reauthorization The 1986 debates were difficult in the context of fiscal crises and opposition from the Oval Office as to what an appropriate budget for higher education policy should be in the constrained environment. Whereas Reagan was not particularly vocal in 1980 about the HEA appropriations, he was involved in the 1986 reauthorization from the budget perspective. Reagan cut funds for education, putting more strain on Congress to keep the HEA at the forefront of federal importance. Senator Kennedy was very outspoken regarding the president’s decisions and what this meant for Congress: “The time has come for the Senate to accept its responsibility for educating the next generation” (Senator Kennedy, 23 April 1986, p.  8528). This responsibility was complicated by presidential decisions specific to the “budget policies [under Reagan] like these have made this administration the most antieducation administration in our history” (Senator Kennedy, 2 June 1986, p. 12057). This was not a context supportive of funding for higher education or for those in most need of access to break the cycle of inequity in the US. One interesting factor in 1986, for the Senate in particular, is that the first televised session of the Senate aired on 2 June 1986, the day the HEA reauthorization was debated on the floor. Although House sessions were first televised in 1979, this was a momentous occasion for the HEA since it was an important legislative action and of interest for so many Americans. Federal funding for education was reduced by 16% from 1980 to 1986. Vocational education was cut by 85% in the president’s budget for 1987. Through the HEA reauthorization, Congress could increase appropriations and challenge the president’s position (Congressional Record, 23 April 1986b). Equity Providing a means to achieve a college education regardless of income was becoming more difficult in 1986. However, Congressional leaders continued to support the important role higher education played in making postsecondary education available to all who desire it. Increasing Pell funds was an important measure to make this goal a reality. Senators Mitchell, Andrews, and Hollings offered an amendment to the HEA 1986 package which called for an increase in Pell funds by $221 million in an effort to support an additional 442,800 students attend college in 1987.

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

123

Senator Mitchell argued that with the rising cost of tuition, not increasing the support for low- and middle-income students was detrimental to the nation. Since the federal government historically supported equitable access to higher education, it was the duty of Congress to continue this legacy through increased funds. This was important not only to the students entering college in the fall but also for generations to come (Senator Mitchell, 23 April 1980). Also a significant means to equity for the disadvantaged, the TRIO programs were noted as in need of increased support to avoid abandoning those who are disadvantaged by more than personal poverty, but from circumstances that prohibit equitable k-12 preparation. These programs identify, support, and prepare students from the most disadvantaged populations to not only get into college but be successful once they begin their studies. “Education is about helping people make it in life,” and these programs “represent investments in people—people who will one day determine the course of this Nation, and whom we must not neglect” (Senator Chafee, 23 April 1986, p. 8527). The people the HEA programs support are those who have “demonstrated his or her ability: They have gotten into college on their own, and on their own merit” and “want to learn, to grow, to succeed, to be the best they can be, to be productive citizens, to be Americans who are energetically participating in the realization of the American dream” (Senator Cranston, 3 June 1986, p.  12136). From this perspective, the Senators argue that if people earn their spot in college, then they are worth supporting. Disadvantaged groups are less likely to achieve the American dream due to the inability to access the institutions that can best support upward mobility; if the disadvantaged overcome that position and are accepted into colleges and universities, they have earned the government’s support that in turn creates a more equitable society. The role of the federal government is to ensure that “students entering higher education have ready access to quality education and are provided an equal education. That is the charge of the Federal Government and we have not been diligent in this responsibility” (Sen. Kennedy, 23 April 1986, p. 8528). The greatest challenge to meeting this goal was the budget; a budget for education that President Reagan had cut each year, leaving Congress to defend the importance of equity in higher education. Each year of Reagan’s presidency, Congress rejected the President’s recommendations for higher education appropriations. Critics of Reagan argued on the Senate floor that Reagan’s priorities were out of line, and

124 

A. L. PALMADESSA

for a president that highlighted the failures of education reported in the infamous 1983 report, it was incomprehensible that education should not be a top funding priority (Congressional Record 23 April 1986b). However, the budget was constrained, and Congress had to act responsibly. In an effort to mitigate the challenge and lack of money, the HEA package offered by the Senate did not add any new programs but established efforts to better support existing programs, particularly those for the most disadvantaged students. First was for the adult students; students who had families and required child care to attend college. To help these students, the cost of child care was added as an allowable expense when calculating Pell Grant allotments. Second, in an effort to encourage women and minority groups to pursue graduate school, the grant for graduate studies was almost doubled to better meet the cost of advanced degree programs. Third, supplemental grants were realigned to make sure that those who receive this type of grant were not only also Pell eligible, but could demonstrate the need for this support. The same was attached to the guaranteed student loans—students must have a means to demonstrate the need for these loans, ensuring that the most disadvantaged receive the support they need to pay tuition. Fourth, the Senate recommended a minimum C average for students who relied on federal aid. This, arguably, was an effort to support not just the neediest students, but those dedicated to their studies and appropriately using the federal funds. And finally, work study was not only kept at the same level of support, but appropriations were earmarked to match state funds that supported community service work as an option for work study students (Congressional Record, 2 June 1986c). Specific, disadvantaged populations were of special interest in the 1986 reauthorizations. This does not mean that Congress has not been successful in making higher education available to more individuals as Senator Simon noted, “while our access mission is within reach, and we have made progress toward achieving some measure of choice—our equal opportunity objective has alluded our grasp” (23 April 1986, p. 8546). In particular, the lack of equity in higher education, particularly for women and minority groups, was a visible and a continued challenge that Congress must address. Equity was not for only women or people of color but also for “Children of immigrants with no education have had an opportunity to study and learn and achieve whatever goals they have set for themselves” (Senator Mitchell, 23 April 1980, p. 8526). With the increase in tuition costs, the question was raised, “What is the impact on those who have the most trouble paying for college in the first place—women and

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

125

minorities?” (Senator Dodd, 3 June 1986, p. 12179). Provisions in Title III were also expanded to include Asian-American students, adding to the already specified black, Hispanic, and Native American populations and institutions that serve them. These specific groups were defined as economically and socially vulnerable, warranting targeted equity policies to assist in their success in higher education, and help the colleges they attend support them (Congressional Record, 3 June 1986d). Equity means access for all who are qualified, who desire higher education, and the ability to choose the type of postsecondary institution that best suits students’ needs. The provisions in the 1986 package were a reaffirmation of the federal government’s duty and desire to make higher education more equitable and ensure quality for all who take advantage of the opportunity offered by higher education (Congressional Record, 25 September 1986f). Access Personal financial means remained the most formidable barrier to higher education for American youth in 1986. Thus, the reauthorization focused on maintaining the commitment to Title I, the student aid provisions, as the recipient of 95% of appropriations. However, “in an era of deficit reduction,” student aid “will be increasingly targeted toward the lowest income students and will leave others with fewer options. The challenge we must meet, if we are to develop the creativity and talent of all our young people, is to assure continued access to higher education for all students” (Senator Mathias, 28 January 1986). “The budget-slashers in the administration have got it wrong—in spending for education, we are adding to our assets, not adding to the debt…Spending on education in an investment in people and an investment in the future” that cannot be met unless higher education access programs are funded (Sen. Kennedy, 2 June 1986, p. 12057). In this climate of deficit-focused appropriations and cost-cutting directives, members of Congress were keenly aware of the vulnerability of programs for the neediest students. Senator Andrews pointed out, “lowering the Federal deficit is without a question our greatest challenge. However, logic, common sense, and fairness must govern our approach to deficit reduction. To shortchange education in the name of national security, fiscal restraint, or for any other reason is wrongheaded, shortsighted, and damaging to the future of our Nation” (23 April 1986, p. 8517). In this

126 

A. L. PALMADESSA

excerpt, Andrews recognizes the importance of facing the deficit but reminds colleagues that cuts cannot be made to education. If education funding is reduced, the very foundation of the nation becomes vulnerable, cracks, and could fail. This imagery supports the idea that this is a dire situation and one that can be addressed by Congress through supporting higher education. To maintain support for higher education funding aimed to increase access, policymakers had to work to simplify processes and ensure that those truly in need, with no other option for access to higher education, were prioritized in the reauthorization. As a result, needs tests and simplification of financial aid applications became a priority. For parents who did not have an opportunity to pursue education or even have a quality k-12 education, simplification was important, as the processes were over burdensome and difficult to complete for those deprived of educational opportunity. Millions of students who received Pell Grants were from these impoverished, disadvantaged backgrounds; making the needs tests and applications accessible was paramount to continued programmatic success (Congressional Record, 23 April 1986b; 25 September 1986f). For those who needed loans in addition to grants to make higher education possible, providing adequate information and counseling for those students was included in the reauthorization. In the economic downturn of the mid-1980s, defaults on loans were not uncommon. Unfortunately, after college and in a depressed economy, employment and income levels needed to repay student loans were an added challenge for these students. One effort to avoid loan default after completing college, the 1986 reauthorization called not just for increased counseling when students apply for loans so that they understand what is expected in the near term but also how to manage and repay those loans after graduation. Considering the added challenge of the economy, maximum repayment schedules were also recommended as a way to avoid default on student loans (Congressional Record, 3 June 1986d). TRIO programs also received special consideration as programs for the neediest students, whose success in accessing and completing higher education often depended on these intervention programs. Noted as specifically important to low-income, first-generation college students, the outreach programs in Title III were proven to meet the goal of access as students who participated in TRIO programs were twice as likely to complete their studies than students not involved in TRIO (Congressional Record, 23 April 1986b). Upward Bound, one of the TRIO programs,

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

127

was especially important for those who were disadvantaged not just by their personal financial status but by the availability of quality education; these are the already neglected students who would otherwise not have an opportunity to attend postsecondary education. This population could not be excluded in the next year’s budget, and it was the duty of Congress to secure that funding. If not, educational institutions and the nation would suffer from the missed opportunity to “train and shape the minds” of potential doctors, engineers, leaders, and teachers (Senator Chafee, 23 April 1986, p. 8526). In other words, if funds are cut, the US will lack medical care and appropriate social and political talent, and education overall will decline. Furthermore, it was important to maintain provisions that allowed for choice of institution. Student aid was needed for all types of postsecondary education, and with the president’s deep cuts to vocational education, more pressure was needed in this reauthorization package to keep true access available to all students, at any institution (Congressional Record, 2 June 1986c). This is imperative for students who need this “vital financial support to purse their own vision of the American dream. It is a law that promises financial access to postsecondary educational training to truly needy students who seek the opportunity to better themselves through academic accomplishment” (Senator Stafford, 2 June 1986, p.  12057). This, Senator Dodd contended, “is a critical issue for all Americans. Nothing less is at stake than our diverse system of colleges and universities and our commitment to the philosophical foundation of the Higher Education Act of 1965: That all young Americans should have access to and choice of educational opportunities, regardless of their personal wealth” (3 June 1986, p. 12179). This was just as important in 1986 as it was in 1965: The Higher Education Act of 1965 was a landmark piece of legislation. That bill, by authorizing programs of financial assistance for postsecondary education for many of our Nation’s citizens, provided the necessary access to full participation in all that our society has to offer…Its reauthorization in the Higher Education Amendments of 1986 is equally landmark legislation. (Senator Hatch, 25 September 1986, p. 26172)

Senator Hatch levies the importance of the 1986 reauthorization as equal to that of the original HEA, giving it a sense of urgency, value, and importance that cannot be argued against. Aligning the original and

128 

A. L. PALMADESSA

current bill gives greater authority to the provisions, even during a fiscal crisis, as “conferees have been careful not to let the default problem override the access question” (Senator Wallop, 25 September 1986, p. 26173). The metaphor of opening the doors of higher education to all regardless of financial status or demographics remained a prominent rationale for reauthorizing the HEA. Senator Simon argued on 2 June 1986, “if education is a classroom with our future inside, it is the most important job of Congress to keep the classroom standing, its doors open, and ensure both quality and equality for those who enter those doors” (p. 12060). In this metaphor, the classroom is a microcosm of the nation; what happens in that classroom and who is able to participate in that classroom is a representation of the country. The Nation How higher education could support the nation, especially during an economically difficult time, was an important theme in the 1986 debates. President Reagan had repeatedly cut education funding in his budget proposals, and Congress pushed back each time. Since 1980, total federal spending was increased by 65%, fueling the deficit; education appropriations were cut by 16%, whereas defense spending rose by 38%. This was problematic from the perspective of a need to protect a nation, as “the defense of our Nation depends not only on weapons, but upon an informed and trained people” (Senator Mitchell, 23 April 1986, p. 8526). Congress must counter the budget cuts and remember “what is truly important in terms of Federal investment. What could be more important than maintaining a strong education system? The future of the United States is in the hands of the Nation’s educators” who need the support and training to do this important work (Senator Chafee, 23 April 1986, p. 8526). If this is not accomplished, Congress is essentially turning its back on the future of the American people. Senator Kennedy was most forthright in his direct blame on President Reagan for the failure to provide adequate support for higher education. He stated, “Year after year, President Reagan has proposed drastic reductions in Federal education programs…We are well into the second administration of Ronald Reagan and it should be clear to every Member of this distinguished body that we cannot rely on the President to defend education” (Sen. Kennedy, 23 April 1986, p. 8527–8528). Thus, it was the duty of the Senate to prioritize this bill as a means to “improve US

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

129

competitiveness in a very competitive world economy” by addressing “the need to improve our human capital resources, particularly our educational resources” (Senator Bingaman, 23 April 1986, p. 8528). This became an almost insurmountable challenge as “President Reagan drew a line in the dust against Congress. He stressed his commitment to free competition and open trade—and threatened to veto any action by Congress that challenges the flawed course he is pursuing” (Senator Kennedy, 2 June 1986, p. 12057). This was a dangerous move by the President, as “we cannot win the battle for economic eminence with one hand tied behind our back on trade, and the other hand tied behind our back on education” (Senator Kennedy, 2 June 1986, p. 12057). This challenge from the president is discursively presented as a representation of the fate of the legislation as the fate of the student, society, and the nation. This bill supports students directly, students who otherwise would not have the opportunity to pursue higher education and realize “the American dream. They will be our future engineers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians, and trade experts who will move our country ahead” if they are provided this opportunity. Although not every student will achieve such occupational status, without this legislation, they likely have no chance to attend college otherwise, making “not only those kids but our Nation…poorer if we allow that to happen” (Senator Cranston, 3 June 1986, p.  12136). This discourse promotes the concept that the fate of the most impoverished, those who lack the support of a nation that pledges freedom and opportunity, represents the fate of the nation. “If the United States wants to remain the world leader it has been—in technology, research, and learning” the 1986 reauthorization “is an important step” (Senator Biden, 4 June 1986, p. 12503). This competitive environment in the world market influenced not just the status of the nation’s economy, but the nation’s security. Unfortunately, the “United States is falling behind in this new age of all-out international competition, in which nations for progress and wealth, not by force of arms but by intelligence and effort in the workplace. This economic and social contest is being waged every day…The challenge we face is how to wage this contest most effectively—and the legislation before us is one of the most promising signs that our country can do better” (Senator Kennedy, 2 June 1986, p.  12057). If this legislation is not approved, Senator Kennedy warned, it would be a “unilateral disarmament in the struggle for the future. We must not accept an administration whose budget is billions more for star wars, but not a penny for student aid” (2 June

130 

A. L. PALMADESSA

1986, p. 12057). Kennedy’s discourse reminds colleagues of the importance of higher education in maintaining peace and prosperity, as well as the best use of talent in preventing struggle from the individual to the national level. The reference to a pop culture icon, the movie Star Wars, is utilized to mock the expense of defense when there are only threats from the Cold War, not an active conflict requiring more defense spending. The mockery and the imagery of defense from intelligence argue that if this legislation is not supported, the nation’s protections will be negated and will become vulnerable. Although it was a difficult task to convince the opposition to move defense funds to education funds, policymakers were reminded of the dire economic situation that was not the fault of individuals or institutions, but the duty of Congress to combat, as “dollar signs are being nailed above the doors of every college in America,” it was the duty of the people’s representatives and a priority established by the 1986 HEA reauthorization that the president’s willingness to drastically reduce student aid programs be halted (Senator Kennedy, 2 June 1986, p. 12057). Senator Pell eloquently argued this same point, with reference to historical narrative and icons of US national identity, in his support of the HEA reauthorization: …on numerous occasions, I have pointed out my deep-seated belief that the real strength and health of our Nation is not dependent upon weapons of destruction, the machines of construction, or the gold in Fort Knox, but the sum total of the education and character of our people. As Disreali said of England over a century ago: ‘Upon the education of the people, the fate of the nation depends’. Those words ring just as true for America today. For few would question that what we do in education today will have benefits for our society for years and years to come. What we accomplish right now in a classroom may well unleash the talents of a new artist, begin the discovery of the cure to a mysterious disease, or perhaps even lead to the achievement of a lasting peace on this planet. It is in the classrooms of American that we sustain this Nation, and it is through education that we ensure that our future will be strong and vibrant (2 June 1986, p. 12060).

the truth stated over a century ago is that investing in further educating a nation’s people is accurate, those who oppose the legislation oppose the future of the Nation. Instead, this legislation was positioned, in opposition to Reagan’s budgetary constraints, as not a spending bill, but an investment:

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

131

…this bill for higher education is not a spending bill. This bill is an investment bill. If you do not like people, if you hate students, if you cannot stand young people and you only worship the almighty dollar, I would say…you still should support this bill and this authorization because it will pay back…about $10 for every dollar we invest in the education of our capable young people. That is what America indeed is all about. It is people. The best investment we could make is in those young Americans who are coming up. Whether they want to go to a diesel mechanics school or a university or a college or go on to graduate school level, that opportunity should be facilitated and if we do indeed and in fact facilitate it…we will have a better tomorrow, and it represents one of the wisest uses of American dollars… (Senator Andrews, 2 June 1986, p. 12068).

In this discourse, the investment versus cost is poised as the balance of the future; investing in human capital via higher education is an investment in the future of the nation and the only way to ensure the preservation of national identity and power. The discursive strategy of higher education as a representation of the nation’s identity was prevalent in the floor debates. Pulling from historical references and connecting educated citizenry to the image of the US abroad were commonly used in the challenging economic context in 1986. Senator Mathias set the standard of this discursive theme when he opened his remarks with reference to the founding president of the United States: “George Washington, in his first message to Congress, said: ‘Knowledge is to every country the surest basis of public happiness’” (28 January 1986, p. 614). American society cannot be secure and successful without the support of federal student aid, because “when we invest a dollar in higher education, we are investing in America’s future…buying this Nation something it sorely needs. The benefits of higher education accrue to the entire society and not merely to individual students…the whole of our future will lie in their hands” (Senator Mathias, 28 January 1986, p. 614). Here, the discursive themes of identity and power are brought together in the metaphor of the hands of students receiving financial aid. If the future of the nation is in its leaders, the individual members of society, then it is the duty and responsibility of the government to see to it that these individuals reap the benefits of higher education so that the nation maintains its status and power. If the HEA reauthorization was not supported, illiteracy would prevail, and “we as a Nation cannot permit this

132 

A. L. PALMADESSA

dismal level of competence among our citizens” (Senator Hollings, 23 April 1986, p. 8518). Senator Andrews provided a narrative of President Lincoln as a means to encourage colleagues to push back against President Reagan’s budget cuts. According to the story told on the floor, President Lincoln often attended church services on Wednesday evenings. After one of the services, Lincoln’s aide asked the President what he thought of the evening’s sermon. “The President replied, ‘The content was excellent. He delivered it with eloquence. And he put work into the message.’” The aide inquired as to whether or not Lincoln thought it was a great sermon, to which he replied, no, it was not great because the speaker “‘forgot the most important ingredient. He forgot to ask us to do something great.’” This message was positioned by Senator Andrews to demonstrate that it was important for the Senate to “show the American people that we…are not only willing but capable of doing something great” which they can prove by supporting the HEA reauthorization package (23 April 1986, p. 8517). One of the greatest challenges to positioning higher education as a means to support the dominant national identity of the US is the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk. In this report, the commission found that “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war” (Congressional Record, 23 April 1986b, p. 8514). This criticism was wielded as a threat from other ideological perspectives, making the claim to “support a strong education system…the latest fad. Unfortunately, as with most fads, such support appears to be all flash, and little substance. The current administration has done nothing to combat this threat and…has exacerbated the problem by refusing to commit to excellence in education” as evidenced by the “decrease [in] the amount of available funding” (Senator Hollings, 23 April 1986, p.  8514). If this trend continues, stating education is important but funding is not provided, the consequences for the nation would be dire and not worth the price in the end (Congressional Record, 23 April 1986b). Democracy References to democratic ideals and the need to preserve democratic values were significant in the 1986 debates, a notable shift from the previous reauthorization debate strategies in 1980. Policymakers in favor of the reauthorization package, and the importance of higher education in

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

133

general, utilized historical references to urge colleagues to support the work of Congress to maintain funding for the HEA programs. Senator Hollings argued, “Education is essential for maintaining our tradition of democracy and individual freedom. Thomas Jefferson eloquently stated the importance of education in a democracy when he said: ‘I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion’” (23 April 1986, p. 8514). Senator Hatch also referenced the founding father when he stood in support of the reauthorization, stating that it was most important to provide direct student aid for higher education because “not only are their personal horizons and future opportunities expanded by this increased access to higher education, but the future of this country is also improved. As Thomas Jefferson so often reminded us, an educated citizenry is crucial to the preservation of representative government” (2 June 1986, p. 12056) and “survival of a democratic society such as ours” (Senator Matsunaga, 3 June 1986, p. 12173). To establish an historical trajectory of support and importance, Senator Stennis considered the first 200 years of American history as evidence that higher education was a necessary public good that must be funded by the federal government to maintain its position of supporter of democracy and democratic ideals: The wonderful discoveries we have made through education during our first 200 years as a nation simply point to what can be done if we continue to support educational initiatives and give priority to maintaining the high standards of support for our colleges and universities. This is no time to hold back on the Federal support which is necessary for higher education to move forward. As we look back on nearly 200 years under our U.S.  Constitution, it is clear that our Government’s early and continued emphasis on the importance of higher education has served us well. Our first leaders decided that a key component of our democracy would be availability of educational opportunities for all our people who are willing to work hard and apply themselves. Truly, the sky has been the limit. This commitment to educational opportunities for one and all has perhaps more than any other single factor contributed to our success as a nation (3 June 1986, p. 12150).

134 

A. L. PALMADESSA

This argument highlights that the history of higher education in the US is significant in the development of the Republic. Colonial universities predate the Constitution by over 100 years, training and preparing the leaders at the forefront of the Revolution. Reminding congressional leaders of the evidence provided in the now 300-year history of American institutions was timely, as this reauthorization in 1986 would carry the nation into its 200th year under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Senator Stennis found this most fitting as in the Democratic-Republic’s 200th year, higher education was still a beacon of democratic hope and values. “As we approach the next century under our constitutional government that does convey real freedom to all of us, we cannot afford to skip this part or neglect it, much less omit it, but must give it the highest priority” (Senator Stennis, 3 June 1986, p. 12151). In more recent history, and embedded in the memory of many serving in Congress in 1986, were the words and democratic values espoused by President Kennedy, without whom this legislation may not have become a reality. Senator Dodd cited the late president: John F. Kennedy once wrote: The future of young people and the Nation rests in large part on their access to college and graduate education. For this country reserves its highest honors for only one kind of aristocracy—that which the Founding Fathers called an “aristocracy of achievement arising out of a democracy of opportunity.”…I am afraid we are in danger of losing that “democracy of opportunity” which President Kennedy so eloquently referred to almost 25 years ago. (3 June 1986, p. 12179)

It was the spirit of Kennedy’s position that Senator Dodd argued positioned the HEA to pass just two years after Kennedy wrote these words. “Since that time, the Federal role in higher education has been shaped by the two philosophical foundations which underlie this landmark Federal statute. First, HEA embodies the uniquely American principle that President Kennedy outlined” that any able student should have the opportunity to attend college, regardless of individual wealth. “Second, HEA symbolizes our conviction that the long-term economic vitality and security of our Nation depend on its ability to sustain a pool of educated citizens who can serve our country’s needs in defense, science, communications, health, commerce, and a host of other areas” (Senator Dodd, 25 September 1986, p. 26171). Corroborating the value of higher education in American democracy, Senator Hatch encouraged colleagues to vote in favor of the

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

135

legislation because “Our country will be better for the passage of this bill, for its reaffirmation of the principle that access to educational opportunity and achievement is fundamental to the success of representative government” (25 September 1986, p. 26172). If higher education is not successful, the history of the nation will shift away from a narrative of success, opportunity, and equality. “The education of America’s children is critical to our future. Our children are the foundation for our national security and strength as a democratic nation in the years ahead. Without an educated young people with a stake in our society, America will ultimately lose out…America’s unique place among nations with its commitment to protect the freedom will erode” (Senator Lautenberg, 23 April 1986, p. 8517–8518). Pro-Education The partisan divide in Congress and between the executive and legislative branches regarding higher education was focused on one point: funding. In the debates, leaders in both houses from both parties supported the value of higher education in the US. The notion that colleges and universities and the students who graduate from postsecondary institutions would positively contribute to the nation and the economy was not doubted. The challenge was simply in how to keep supporting this means to grow the economy in the middle of a fiscal crisis, particularly when President Reagan was willing to slash the education budget across the board. Thus, those who valued higher education enough to push back against the executive and his staunch supporters simply reminded their counterparts of the contributions of higher education in the past and the value added by a college education and graduates utilizing knowledge learned in the public and private sectors. As a discursive strategy, this is quite simple: it is embedded in each of the other macro-strategies and provides a foundation to thwart the opposition. Purposeful reduction of support for higher education was positioned as antithetical to the discourse of the Reagan administration that responded to the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, with calls for improvement in education at all levels. This report determined that the education “system is in dire need of reform. Incredibly enough, the response of the current administration to this plethora of demands to reform and strengthen the educational system has been to decrease the amount of available funding…What are the consequences of this declining commitment to

136 

A. L. PALMADESSA

education?…the results are devastating” (Senator Hollings, 23 April 1986, p. 8514). Reports such as the scathing 1983 findings demonstrate allow the opposition to blame teachers for the failures of the nation. Senator Bradley claimed that this was the rationale of the executive branch, coupled with blaming young people’s behavior as reasons for a decline in American dominance. However, it is “shortsighted to talk about the importance of education…while persistently cutting back on the Federal commitment to education. We cannot continue to pare away at our investment in our most vital national resource…We cannot look at education as an isolated program that we can cut with impunity. Education has a critical impact on the serious social problems confronting our Nation” (23 April 1986, p. 8518). The only way to accomplish this goal is for Congress to reprioritize funding for higher education and reaffirm the importance of education at all levels. The challenge was reminiscent of the Sputnik era when education was blamed for the loss of the Space Race; in the 1980s, education was blamed for economic and market competition woes, particularly from European nations and specifically noted, Japan (Senator Kennedy, 2 June 1986, p. 12057). This HEA reauthorization is the best opportunity to meet the “urgent need…in the competitive international realm” that supports the overall “good for the students and the schools they attend, and good for the country” (Senator Cranston, 3 June 1986, p. 12136). Since budget reductions began in 1981, over 700,000 students lost federal aid. “It is good common sense to utilize our Nation’s most valuable asset—her people. Investment in the human infrastructure is the most cost-effective method for ensuring” continued national success. “The knowledge created and transmitted by educational institutions is the key to our …strength in an increasingly competitive world…We simply cannot afford to allow education to become the preserve of a privileged few… ‘A mind is a terrible thing to waste’. We in the Senate have a responsibility to assure that no minds go to waste in this country” and that can be accomplished through the HEA reauthorization (Senator Hollings, 23 April 1986, p. 8514). Senator Andrews agreed that not funding the programs in HEA would be the equivalent of having “the doors to their future slammed shut even before they have been fully opened to them…condemning our children to an intellectual wasteland and short-circuiting the training of our best and brightest young people to take their places as leaders [and]…as literate and knowledgeable citizens in our great democracy…[for] ‘if a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

137

civilization, it expects what never was and never will be’” (23 April 1986, p. 8517). Pro-education discursive strategies effectively employed historical narrative, the need for higher education to be accessible and equitable, and the democratic values for national success. Embedded in the arguments on the floor were direct statements opposing the president’s lack of response to calls for reform, yet ease in placing blame on education for national failures. The pro-education leaders were quick to espouse how higher education specifically could combat the national problems, both economic and social. However, the battle to increase funding for higher education programs and student aid in the HEA was a difficult, hard-fought endeavor. The availability of funds in a fiscal crisis was the challenge, and the opposition made this very clear.

Fiscal Challenges, Banks, and Loan Defaults: Opposition to the 1986 Reauthorization Inflation and pressure from President Reagan gave those who preferred to allocate more money to defense spending than education plenty of ammunition to oppose the HEA package of 1986. Vocational education was specifically targeted between the 1980 and 1986 reauthorizations, with postsecondary education marked as a close second. Arguments supporting these cuts were rooted in the budget constraints caused by the deficit; deficit neutral policies were reinforced by legal authority through the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. This legislation was an attempt to force Congressional leaders to determine what should be considered national priorities in a budget that was only increasing, not decreasing, as debt continued to rise. Given this legislation, which arguably was proposed as a means to support initiatives such as the HEA reauthorization, the purpose was to reorganize the priorities and allocate funds to programs or initiatives that would help the nation overcome the fiscal challenges. Whether or not higher education met that criteria is where the opposition was able to wield some power. For those who favored increases in defense spending over education funding claimed there would be a more rapid return on investment (Congressional Record, 23 April 1986b; 2 June 1986c). Also supporting those who desired to cut funds to HEA programs was the evidence of student loan defaults. This was an issue, but was exaggerated: “the public image of massive defaults is not an accurate image. In

138 

A. L. PALMADESSA

fact, defaults on student loans are lower than defaults on car loans at commercial banks” (Senator Simon, 3 June 1986, p.  12146). The question was raised as to whether or not this was an issue that should receive Department of Education oversight or not; this would be costly, but the value of avoidance of defaults and a better relationship between banks and the government was supported by those who used the default rate to support their position. On the other hand, loan defaults could be avoided through better counseling and planning, as well as repayment plans for recent graduates (Congressional Record, 3 June 1986d). Finally, the opposition argued that individuals were taking advantage of the grant system. There were, of course, students and institutions that abused the availability of grants, which was also a difficult matter in 1980. However, many of the issues were already resolved through previous legislation. What could resolve this issue and was included in the 1986 reauthorization was increased federal aid counseling in financial aid offices on campuses as well as revisions to the needs assessments to make sure the neediest students were served first, followed by those from low- to middle-­ income levels (Congressional Record, 25 September 1986f).

The Legacy of the 1980s and the Final Decade of the Twentieth Century The final years of the Reagan administration were fiscally challenging, but the president managed to resolve some of the discontent when he successfully convinced Gorbachev to bring the Berlin Wall down, setting the stage for the fall of the USSR. With the alleviation of defense pressures from the Cold War and as a result of trade regulations, the American economy would begin its recovery at the end of the 1980s. The next election cycle was a continuation of Republican policy domination, in part due to Reagan’s success in ending the Evil Empire, with Vice President G. H. W. Bush by his side. Bush easily defeated his Republican challenger, Senator Bob Dole, and won the presidential election against Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis, then Governor of Massachusetts, in a landslide victory of the popular vote and the electoral vote. In 1989, President G. H. W. Bush declared that he wanted to build a better America. This plan considered education, drugs and crime, the environment, and the economy to be the most important domestic policy issues for this administration (Baptiste et al., 2005). Whether or not this

5  REAUTHORIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT FOR A NATION… 

139

meant President Bush would support reinstating funds under HEA lost during Reagan’s administration or not was not evidenced early in his term. However, as policies that supported technological advancement and knowledge transfer emerged, these crucial aspects of the neoliberal economy prompted the federal government to reestablish its relationship with higher education, albeit for new motives—no longer for the student, but for the knowledge-based economy and neoliberal principles.

References Baker, T. L., & Velex, W. (1996). Access and opportunity in postsecondary education in the United States: A review. Sociology of Education, 82–101. Baptiste, H. P., Orvosh-Kamenski, H., & Kamenski, C. J. (2005). American presidents and their attitudes, beliefs, and actions surrounding multicultural education: Sixth installment. Multicultural Education, 12(3), 28–41. Brown, Rosen, Hill, & Olivas. (1980). The condition of education for Hispanic Americans. Congressional Record. (1980a, February 20). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1980/02/20 Congressional Record. (1980b, June 23). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1980/06/23 Congressional Record. (1980c, June 24). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1980/06/24 Congressional Record. (1980d, August 23). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1980/08/23 Congressional Record. (1980e, August 28). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1980/08/28 Congressional Record. (1980f, September 4). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1980/09/04 Congressional Record. (1980g, September 25). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1980/09/25 Congressional Record. (1986a, January 28). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1986/01/28 Congressional Record. (1986b, April 23). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1986/04/23 Congressional Record. (1986c, June 2). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1986/06/02 Congressional Record. (1986d, June 3). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1986/06/03 Congressional Record. (1986e, June 4). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1986/06/04

140 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Congressional Record. (1986f, September 25). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1986/09/25 Doyle, W. R. (2010). U.S. Senator’s ideal points for higher education: Documenting partisanship, 1965–2004. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(5), 619–644. Geiger, R. (2019). American higher education since World War II: A history. Princeton University Press. MacDonald, V.-M., Botti, J. M., & Clark, L. H. (2007). From visibility to autonomy: Latinos and higher education in the U.S., 1965–2005. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 474–504. McElroy, E. J., & Armesto, M. (1998). TRIO and upward bound: History, programs, and issues—Past, present, and future. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 373–380. Mumper, M. (2003). The future of college access: The declining role of public higher education in promoting equal opportunity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585, 97–117. Palmadessa, A. L. (2014). Higher education and the discursive construction of American national identity, 1946–2013 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro. United States Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. US Printing Office.

CHAPTER 6

Preparing for Challenge and Seeking Change: Reauthorizations in the 1990s

The 1990s were the decade of solidification of neoliberal ideology, formally embedded in social, economic, and education policy, a turn that challenged the social contract between the university and the nation (Palmadessa, 2014, 2017). It is in the context of the neoliberal economy and push to create more knowledge-based and technological products that the usefulness of research institutions was emphasized (Palmadessa, 2017). However, there were challenges to the effectiveness of higher education more broadly, causing the American public to question what universities were actually producing and if there truly was a return on the federal investment. It was not until technology transfer legislation facilitated financial gain from university research that the American public and members of academe openly supported research universities, as innovative discoveries became the most efficient means for institutions to acquire outside funding and, in many cases, profits. It was this ability to gain profit from research, ultimately recovering from the loss of state support due to economic constraints, as well as lack of interest to support higher education in policymaking circles at all levels. Institutional leaders used this as leverage, making institutions competitive in the marketplace and solidifying the position of higher education in the market economy (Geiger, 2019; Palmadessa, 2017, 2019; Thelin, 2011). Once higher education reclaimed a position of utility to the public, students were more willing to assume debt to attend colleges and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. L. Palmadessa, Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43706-9_6

141

142 

A. L. PALMADESSA

universities. This is evidenced in student borrowing patterns, which doubled over the course of the 1990s. This, of course, raises an additional issue, that of who could or was willing to take on substantial debt as tuition and fees continued to rise, state funding decreased, and federal grants dissipated. Unfortunately, this shift impacted all institution types across the higher education hierarchy. As Geiger (2019) notes, tuition rates in the 1990s soared “to compensate for stagnant public support,” as higher “tuition revenues were needed to sustain or advance the quality of education” even at the expense of access as the rising cost of tuition exceed many family incomes, “diminishing [sic.] affordability and hence access” (p.  294). With market forces and ideological challenges to the value of higher education juxtaposed against increased tuition rates and other financial barriers, facilitating access to those who most need help was an almost insurmountable task for leaders and policymakers alike. This was exacerbated by not only the political climate but also the difficulty of moving higher education policy through both houses of Congress in the early 1990s in a difficult economy. As the economy improved in the second half of the 1990s and student demand was on the rise, the federal and state contributions responded, and higher education embarked on a return to a position of value even as policymakers struggled to move supportive measures into legislative action (Geiger, 2019).

The Bush Administration, 1989–1993 Relevant legislation under the Bush administration not directed towards education but influential on the debate context were the policies of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that prevented discrimination based on individuals’ abilities and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 that addressed employment practices in higher education. Specific to education, President Bush worked with state governors to craft a perceived grass-roots analysis of education from the bottom up. The plan, America 2000, included four main goals for American education—national expectations, accountability for use of federal funds, state system analyses and restructuring, and a reporting system to account for how states address each state’s educational needs and goals. Initiating this governor-led process allowed Bush to avoid articulating a clear plan for education in the US but satisfied public expectation for federal attention to educational quality (Baptiste et al., 2005).

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

143

The 1992 Reauthorization Higher education policymaking at the federal level is a lengthy process, and the reauthorization of 1992 is an affirmation of the constrained political environment that supporters of higher education are challenged with when HEA reauthorizations are on the horizon (Hannah, 1996). This is in part due to the legislation being a “redistributive policy [sic.] that transfer[s] value to the less advantaged at the expense of the more advantaged” (Hannah, 1996, p. 502). This was a challenge with the initial legislation in 1965, but the supporters had the backing of the president, the civil rights movement, and an agenda titled the War on Poverty. This was not the case in 1992 nor in many other reauthorization years, creating an even more complicated environment for higher education access policy; being an election year certainly did not minimize these challenges (Hannah, 1996). Higher education policy became a partisan issue in the early 1990s even though neither party was wholeheartedly concerned with higher education access. It was not until the issue of lending was brought forward that representatives began to weigh in (Doyle, 2010). As in the late 1970s, a model of redistribution via grants is replaced by an emphasis on loans, further marginalizing students from lower incomes. Pell grant amounts were stagnant and no longer enough to support lower income students, and debt was insurmountable as the cost of tuition rose (Hannah, 1996). As Cofer and Somers (2001) plainly state, “the 1992 Reauthorization (Pub. L. No. 102-325) cemented the shift in federal policy from a commitment to promoting access through need-based grants to a broader strategy of loans regardless of family income or need” (p. 59). Just as in the late 1970s, tuition relief for the middle class through tax policies became a central policy effort cloaked as access policy. The issue with tax relief for college tuition credit is that this does not help the most marginalized; to receive tax credit benefits for tuition, there are minimum income qualifications, negating access for those most in need (Doyle, 2010). This change disproportionally supported middle- and upper-income students, leaving those at the center of the original legislation behind in not only access to higher education (Mumper, 2003), but a means to raise their overall well-being through employment that would lead to higher earnings (Doyle, 2010; Hannah, 1996). However dismal, there was one significant change for one marginal population in 1992. There were efforts to encourage more women and

144 

A. L. PALMADESSA

minority students to study scientific fields, requiring additional funding and support for the target population (Moehlmann, 1992). Senator Pell introduced the need to add another specific institution type as part of the 1992 reauthorization of the HEA. Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) were defined as institutions with a population of Hispanic students equaling 25% of full-time enrollment, no less than 50% of that population being both low-income and first generation, and 50% of that population meeting at least one of those criteria. This newly identified marginalized population was captured under Title III, the same title defining and allocating funds to HBCUs specifically, which was an important step in providing equal access to higher education for Hispanic students. However, this population was not easily or readily defined in many institutions, causing difficulty for those who desperately needed the funding. This was in part due to the inability of the colleges to capture the required information but also due to the overall political climate in the early 1990s that favored conservative anti-immigrant policies, with an emphasis on the Latino community in the US (MacDonald et al., 2007). The continued conservative agenda under President Bush presented challenges for supporters of the HEA in its next reauthorization. The nation was beginning to climb out of the recession, but there were questions raised by conservative as to the value of the redistributive policy. This placed the HEA in the middle of a partisan debate that was not necessarily concerned with higher education or its value, but how to best utilize federal funds for whom. This is reflected in the discursive strategies in each debate, and the issues focused upon on the floor. Equity The issue of equity in the 1992 reauthorization was a familiar debate. Tuition costs were rising and the nation was in a recession. This caused many families to be priced out of postsecondary education, arguably returning the concept of a college education to be “an opportunity only for a privileged few” (Senator Wirth, 24 January 1992, p. 463). Senator Pell took issue with this shift and reminded his colleagues that the HEA was the means to fulfilling the dream of college education for any student, no matter how financially disadvantaged. Pell pointed out that the cost of higher education rose by 135% over the last ten years whereas family incomes only increased 60% in that same decade, and to make matters worse, Pell Grant funding decreased. This had to be corrected to make

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

145

sure there was equitable access to higher education: “But let me make something clear. While we have built…a strong and good foundation, we must add the full funding that will bring reality to the promises we have made. Money is the cement that will hold the bricks together and make what we have constructed strong” (Senator Pell, 21 February 1992, p.  2895). In other words, the effort was not complete. The base was established, but the structure would fall, the mission of equity would fail, if money was not reallocated to cement the policy as an imperative for the US. Senator Kennedy agreed and called for more grant funding as a means to support the most impoverished students, but unfortunately, the Senator noted that the Bush administration was not supportive of this goal, prohibiting the most disadvantaged from the financial support needed to attend higher education by reducing and phasing out important programs such as work study (20 February 1992). A significant issue of debate that targeted the most disadvantaged students was whether or not Pell Grants should be an entitlement for those who meet the financial requirement. This was a rather contentious debate, as entitlement programs more broadly were a part of the budget debate, not just the HEA debates. Senator Adams argued, “If we are serious about universal access to higher education, then we must provide the grants that make that goal a reality” (20 February 1992, p.  2759). However, the questions surrounding fraudulent use of federal funds were a constant concern due to cases of individuals and institutions taking advantage of the financial aid system. Fraud caused programs to be costly and inefficient, making Pell funds an entitlement raised questions as to how the program would be protected (Congressional Record, 20 February 1992). Representative AuCoin requested the entitlement be extended to middleand low-income students, arguing that if Pell Grants were not made an entitlement for those in need, “we risk our future. We simply cannot afford to risk an education system that is accessible only to the rich. If we keep going like we are right now, soon only millionaires will be able to send their kids to college” (8 July 1992, p. 18189). Although this claim seems exaggerated, prior to any education legislation in the middle of the twentieth century, higher education was only accessible to the wealthy Americans, who were also white. Equitable opportunity for higher education based on racial barriers was an important theme in this reauthorization package. Hispanic students and Hispanic-serving institutions were specifically addressed in the debates and in the resulting reauthorization. Senator Simon noted the need to

146 

A. L. PALMADESSA

increase financial support for this at-risk population, arguing that “We face a disproportionately low number of Hispanics who graduate from high school who go on to college. That should change, both from the viewpoint of the benefits of the Hispanic community and from the viewpoint of using the Nation’s resources as fully as we can” (20 February 1992, p. 2759). Representative Richardson noted, “Hispanic college enrollment is lower than almost any other major population group. Hispanics, between the ages of 18–24, have had the lowest college participation rates of any ethnic group and achieve degrees at much lower rates than white students” (25 March 1992, p. 6861). This was especially concerning since the Hispanic community in the US was growing at a rapid pace and “make up a large part of our workforce,” and therefore “we must do what we can to ensure that Hispanic-Americans are as well trained and educated as possible for the 21st century” (Rep. Richardson, 25 March 1992, p. 6861). Other marginalized populations were considered in the 1992 debates. African American students and HBCUs were a consistent focus of Congressional concern and provided for in the legislation. Senator Hatfield noted the value of education for all individuals: “The mind, the United Negro Fund reminds us is a terrible thing to waste, a waste which no individual should be forced to accept” (20 February 1992, p. 2774). Minority populations were the most at risk of having to make this decision, leading to another intervention—urban education grants. Providing federal funds to support the work of urban postsecondary institutions was likened to the land grant colleges helping in rural communities: We have the land grant colleges that have their focus upon the support for the rural areas of our State and of our Nation. Now this has become the equivalent of the focus upon the unique urban problems…Our Nation’s urban centers are facing increasingly pressing problems and needs…we have the resources ready to deploy to improve these conditions, and they are in the Nation’s institutions of higher education. (Sen. Hatfield, 20 February 1992, p. 2775)

The discourse of urban needs, much like in previous debates, was a veiled phrase. The ‘urban needs’ in 1992 were the result of continued isolation of poverty, particularly for minority populations, in large cities. This was evidenced by riots in 1992, particularly after the beating of Rodney King in April of 1992. The result of that public event led to looting and rioting in cities, creating a battle cry to help with ‘urban needs’, i.e., poverty and

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

147

lawless behavior, descriptors used in the 1960s and 1970s when people were deemed to be behaving in an un-American way. In addition to undergraduate support, African-American graduate students were noted as a population in need of increased opportunity. Representative Jefferson noted the lack of minority representation in graduate and professional programs, and the impact of lack of minority graduate students also has on HBCUs with graduate programs. To address this issue, Representative Jefferson posited that financial support to HBCU graduate programs would increase output of minorities with advanced degrees, more equitably distributing positions in jobs and careers also lacking in minority representation. The government’s willingness to invest in HBCUs “is tied inextricably to the Nation’s willingness to invest in them [the African American students]” (Rep. Jefferson, 26 March 1992, p. 7175). Women were also a point of concern in 1992. Women were noted as being at risk of not completing college because of violence on campus, specifically related to instances of sexual assault, and this was considered an issue of equity—equity of protection for a vulnerable population. Senators Biden and Specter were champions of this provision, noting the sad reality of campus sexual assault cases and the impact on college completion. Biden noted that one out of four college women will be victims of assault before they complete four years of study; he argued “in a society that says it values education so highly, it is shameful that women are dropping out of college because of physical violence” (20 February 1992, p. 2793). To curb this trend of dropout, campus sexual assault policy requirements were added to the 1992 reauthorization. Although this provision would not secure equitable access to a college degree for women, it would protect victims and improve campus security procedures (Sen. Specter, 20 February 1992). Representatives Ramstad and Molinari introduced a similar amendment in the House, targeting campus procedures for cases of sexual assault (Congressional Record, 25 March 1992). Senator Kerry summarized the goal of the Senate’s contributions to the HEA reauthorization and the mission to create a more equitable system for the disadvantaged: [The bill] recognizes that America can only maintain its enviable standard of living, and spread that standard more equitably among all citizens of the Nation, if we regain and maintain our competitiveness…we can only reach the objective if we have a literate and educated population. This bill makes

148 

A. L. PALMADESSA

great strides in our essential effort to achieve this goal. (21 February 1992, p. 2916)

In agreement with the importance of this legislation, Representative Derrick’s summation argued that the bill must consider the fact that people from upper-income families were four times more likely to attend college than their lower- and middle-income counterparts, and this inequity was dangerous for the Nation. Representative Derrick addressed the floor, “this Nation must have educated people, not just educated rich people. Education has the means to put all people on the road to equality…It’s a matter of fairness” (26 March 1992, p. 7162). Interestingly, in this metaphor, individuals are placed on a road to equality; people are not guaranteed equality, but the federal government is creating a means for individuals to achieve that goal. The barriers to this goal were formidable as inequity based on income was an “ancient barrier (sic.)” that could not be allowed to “inhibit, restrict, circumscribe, or deny opportunities for higher education for deserving young people throughout our Nation” (Representative Clay, 8 July 1992, p. 18263). Access The cost of higher education was the most formidable barrier for students in the 1990s and remained as important theme in the 1992 debates. Unfortunately, federal funding for education declined in the 1980s, arguably harming the preparation of disadvantaged students, and discouraged college enrollment for those most impoverished and underprepared. Further complicating the reauthorization were the challenges of the overall economy and the budget agreement. Senator Wirth very pointedly argued: For the last decade, a series of education surveys from the Carnegie Commission to A Nation at Risk have warned us about declining performance in the classroom. For the first time, in our Nation’s history, we will be graduating from high school a generation of young people less literate than their parents. Our commitment to new jobs and retraining in our changing economy is down to the lowest level in 30 years. In too many cases youngsters are being priced out of access to higher education, which is becoming an opportunity only for a privileged few. These are symptoms of serious problems in our Nation’s social and economic fabric…The budget

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

149

agreement must be revised to reflect our true American priorities…[the] Federal education agenda must recognize and invest in the full range of educational programs, including early childhood development, elementary and secondary education, school-to-work transition, and higher education. (24 January 1992, p. 463)

Given the underfunding of preparation and inadequate access to federal grants and aid for college students who desire but cannot afford higher education, and the argument that the economy could not recover from a recession without an educated workforce raised another important access issue in 1992: access for middle-income students. This group of young people who sought higher education but did not qualify for Pell or other need-based aid were in a particularly difficult situation, according to Congressional representatives. Senator Boren argued that the “stagnant economy” was the cause of this added barrier that created a “double-bind in which many middle-income Americans” encounter when trying to pay for college (24 January 1992, p. 477). Because of this, there was a gap in access for the middle class, making college a reality for the poorest but well-prepared and the wealthy, regardless of educational ability (Congressional Record, 24 January 1992). Senator Durenberger warned there was “a deep-seated fear that college is again in danger of becoming the sole province of the totally subsidized poor and those few wealthy Americans who need no subsidies at all” (20 February 1992, p. 2771). Representative Reed shared the story of one of his constituents’ families, a middle-class family that secured loans for one child but was unable to take on additional debt for their second child to attend college. Representative Reed lamented, “I do not want us to return to a situation in which the favorite child gets to go to school. We have to commit ourselves to making education available for all our citizens with the ability and determination to seize it” (25 March 1992, p. 6860). This example further supported the argument for the extension of Pell Grant funds to middle-income families as a means to protect from loan default resulting from the increase in cost of higher education versus the increase in family income (Congressional Record, 25 March 1992). Senator Pell, the champion of higher education access for those who desire but cannot afford a college education reminded Congressional members of the importance of the HEA as a means to access higher education no matter the financial status, only the drive to pursue an education when he stated: “This is very important legislation, for it is through the

150 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Higher Education Act that the dream of access and opportunity for a college education becomes a reality. It is in this act that we say that a lack of financial wealth shall not and will not stand in the way of a person who has the talent, desire, and drive to reach out for a college education” (20 February 1992, p. 2753). This was the duty of the federal government to put students’ aspirations first and support them directly as “Without federal aid, educational opportunity in American higher education simply would not exist” (Sen. Pell, 20 February 1992, p. 2753). Senator Adams urged his colleagues, “If we are serious about universal access to higher education, then we must provide the grants that make that goal a reality” (20 February 1992, p. 2759). For those who are underprepared or disadvantaged by poverty, circumstances that are out of their control that create added challenges once admitted to college even with the support of aid, success in college becomes an issue of access. Senator Kennedy highlighted the need to improve k-12 education as preparation for college and increase access to all types of postsecondary schools: “Clearly we must dedicate our efforts to making higher education more accessible to more students who enroll in college to finish their degrees. If we are to improve the academic performance and retention of our students, we must attack the problem at all levels of the educational system” (20 February 1992, p.  2756). This, Kennedy argued, “is the key to American competitiveness in tomorrow’s world. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is an opportunity to revise and improve the current system to give more students the opportunity to achieve their full potential” (20 February 1992, p.  2757). Students’ full potential cannot be realized without access, and access cannot be limited to the few if the United States is to continue its position as a world leader (Sen. Adams, 20 February 1992). The Nation The nation’s position was altered just before the 1992 reauthorization negotiations began. With the official fall of the USSR, the US was back to an undisputed position and, as a result, was able to reduce defense spending. During the Cold War, the US spent a significant portion of the budget on defense, not just in times of war but in times of relative peace with the backdrop of potential war with the USSR at the forefront of concern. As part of the budget reconciliation, Senator Wirth argued that the money previously earmarked for bombers and nuclear weapons facilities should

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

151

be redirected towards education. Senator Wirth argued that “our children have been short-changed” and reports such as “A Nation at Risk have warned us about declining performance in our classrooms…Our commitment to new jobs and retraining in our changing economy is down to the lowest level in 30 years. In too many cases youngsters are being priced out of access to higher education…” (24 January 1992, p.  463). This was problematic, Sen. Wirth continued, because: These indeed should be the best of times. The cold war is over and the Communist threat is gone forever. Democratic ideals prevail around the world. The market system is pursued by virtually every nation around the globe and the world looks to the United States of America for leadership. But, ironically, there is little rejoicing here at home. We seem to be at peace with everyone but ourselves. (24 January 1992, p. 463)

This lack of peace at home could, arguably, be settled if higher education was prioritized for the nation’s youth. Part of the challenges at home were political, as Senator Hatfield noted that compared to 1965, the political climate was quite different. In 1965, in the context of the Great Society, there was more money available to spend; in 1992, “our belts are pulled much tighter…At a time when dollars are few, people may ask how on Earth we can afford to spend even more money on education…the answer is, of course, we cannot afford to do less” (Sen. Hatfield, 20 February 1992, p.  2774). Although the nation was experiencing a recession and there were many ideas as to how to alleviate the economic downturn, Senator Hatfield plead with his colleagues, “This is not just for economics…it is for the defense of the Nation, and it is for the political stability of the Nation, as well as for the economy of the Nation” (20 February 1992, p.  2774). In this strategy, the stability of the nation hinges upon more people having access to higher education. It is recognized that the expense was a challenge, but one that had to be made for this to be an effective measure to bring the nation out of the economic crisis. Supporting the need to allocate more federal money to higher education, Senator Jeffords highlighted not just the fact that better-educated individuals are good for the economy as human capital, but what the US government allocated to support postsecondary education paled in comparison to other nations; Japan, for example, allocated 12% of their GNP whereas the US dedicated a mere .6% of GNP to higher education (24 January 1992). The irony lies in this argument, presented by Senator Pell:

152 

A. L. PALMADESSA

“with the bill before us, the Federal Government will continue to be the dominant player in student aid…Without federal aid, educational opportunity in American higher education simply would not exist” (20 February 1992, p.  2753). Yet, “[u]nlike other industrialized democracies, this country expects students and their families to bear the primary burden of paying for higher education” (Senator Kennedy, 20 February 1992, p. 2756). It was in this reauthorization that leaders and policymakers had the opportunity to shift weapons investment to higher education investment, a long-term plan to prioritize the success of individuals and the nation’s status (Representative Unsoeld, 25 March 1992). For this reason alone, the reauthorization of the HEA was of utmost importance for national, economic growth and success. Higher education, after all, is the door to opportunity (Senator Hatch, 20 February 1992), one that is unique to the Nation and the American dream (Representative Hoagland, 25 March 1992), and the key to the future (Representative Gordon, 25 March 1992). The metaphors relating to keys, doors, and dreams were consistent throughout the floor debates, not deviating from previous years’ arguments. However, the concept of individuals as long-term investments and defense mechanisms was somewhat unique, but not unsuspected given the dominance of neoliberal ideology. This ideological position influenced the perception of the relationship between students, education, and the economy that in effect creates the nation-state. One outlier metaphor in the 1992 debates was the engine metaphor. Representative Reed noted, “education is the engine that pulls this country forward. Individually, it is the mechanism by which people rise to seize all the opportunities that this country offers. Collectively, it is the force that has always made us the leader in the world” (25 March 1992, p.  6859). In this metaphor, the engine operates, but the individuals must take advantage, control the engine, and use the product of the engine to further educate themselves as members of the collective. Here, the individual has to take initiative—education is in motion, people must latch on, and when individuals do, the outcome is positive for all whether or not they seize that opportunity. That engine also fuels the machine that is the national economy as the HEA provides “millions more young people with vital college aid. It will help us build a lean, mean economic machine, and it will help us restore the American dream” (Representative Lowey, 8 July 1992, p. 18186). Colleges and universities in the US were consistently lauded as the best in the world. Congressional members made this point repeatedly as a

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

153

means to remind the opposition as to the importance of the HEA and its programs. However excellent the institutions, if the nation is to remain the most powerful and the leader in higher education, access to all who desire postsecondary education must be a priority for the federal government (Senator Adams, 20 February 1992). Pell grants and entitlement programs were argued as the most effective means to make this a reality by those who supported increasing funds directly allocated to students in need. Senator Jeffords was a strong supporter of making Pell money an entitlement, arguing that if Pell was not increased, or if additional grants were not made available, “we will doom ourselves to failure. This country cannot afford to turn its back on the indigent—again. The Pell grant entitlement is a necessary and important step to students and to this Nation” (20 February 1992, p.  2772). If this is neglected, “we will not be in a position to compete,” Jeffords argued (20 February 1992, p. 2775), and Senator Daschle agreed that this was imperative as the Nation looked forward to the year 2000 and the “central role of education in an increasingly competitive global economy” in positioning the US to be successful in the world market (21 February 1992, p. 2900). Democracy Democratic idealism and preservation of key aspects of democracy were not prevalent themes in the debates regarding the reauthorization in 1992. Although democracy was referenced, it was either positioned in opposition to a foe such as the former USSR, or in a descriptive manner. The descriptive uses of democratic ideals such as the American dream, goals of society, and general political superiority were embedded in the discourse that supported national welfare and power. “I know that we all join together in recognizing, as we talk about defense, the real strength of our Nation is in the sum total of education, the health and the character of our people, and that is what we are working on tonight” through the HEA reauthorization (Sen. Pell, 20 February 1992, p. 2785). Otherwise, “We cannot maintain the strongest power in the world on the sheer fact of our military prowess. We cannot expect to remain the leading symbol of political and economic success with the rest of the world if we fail to properly support and educate our young people…to go out and conquer the world” (Representative Murphy, 25 March 1992, p. 6858). Representative Martinez warns of what could happen in a democracy if the government does not fund higher education according to national needs and what the

154 

A. L. PALMADESSA

return on the investment could be if the HEA reauthorization is voted down: The American success story was built on the foundation of education…education has transformed the Nation to build a better future. Study after study shows that education is far, far more important than virtually any other factor in building economic change. Quite simply, jail costs more than Yale— and Yale pays better for the individual and the nation. (8 July 1992, p. 18259)

Direct references to democracy or democratic ideals were sparse in the 1992 debates. This is somewhat surprising given the end of the Cold War, although the descriptive references include juxtapositions of the US and the USSR. Alternatively, this is arguably not unexpected given the dominance of neoliberal ideology as evidenced in the floor debates. Senator Hatfield noted the importance of an educated citizenry as “the very foundation of a democratic government depends on a well-educated electorate” and funding that education “provides even greater national security” when it is specifically supporting higher education (20 February 1992, p. 2774). Federal support for higher education should not be a question, as Senator Heflin pointed out, “higher education is a cornerstone of American democracy” (13 March 1992, p.  5602). The continuation of that foundation of democracy and the continued role of higher education in supporting a “Nation of learners” to reach the full potential of all citizens (Representative Petri, 26 March 1992, p.  7230) were dependent upon the 1992 reauthorization (Representative Gunderson, 25 March 1992). Pro-Education The Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Acts, the GI Bill, and the original 1965 HEA were commonly referenced as a reason to support the reauthorization. Each of the historical moments of significant federal influence on higher education, whether for access, democratization, or readjustment, laid the groundwork for the importance, value, and necessity of the 1992 reauthorization package (Congressional Record, 8 July 1992). The impact of these federal actions was well known, and in referencing their impact, members were encouraged to support the conference report in 1992. One of the points of debate in Congress was the relationship between the federal government and postsecondary institutions and individuals,

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

155

whether families or students. Early in the floor debates, Senator Kennedy reminded colleagues of the hard-fought and won battle of the first HEA in 1965 to make sure that the government supported students first. Kennedy noted the controversy and Senator Pell’s determination to put students, not universities, first in the relationship between federal aid and access. The result of this federal government to student relationship was, according to Senator Kennedy, “a very wise decision to make sure that…the role of the Federal Government was going to be in partnership with the student. And to have the institutions of higher learning responding to the needs of students” and that decision “has been vindicated over the period of the last 20 years” (20 February 1992, p. 2755). Whether or not the federal government was overstepping the states was a continual debate since 1965 but was far less prevalent in 1992. At this point, it was noted that the federal government indeed had a role in higher education policy, as it was effective and necessary, but this relationship also supported states and the private sector in those entities connections to higher education (Sen. Kennedy, 21 February 1992). However important and proven these relationships are in the history of the HEA, there were attempts to thwart federal support. Accusations of the Reagan and Bush administrations’ attempts to undercut higher education funding were positioned as a reason to support the 1992 HEA reauthorization and to reinforce the importance of policymaking to maintain the relationship between the nation and the institutions of higher learning for the benefits of individuals, the institutions, and the nation. Senator Daschle clearly voiced his discontent with the two previous presidents’ policy agendas when he argued that the HEA reauthorization: Improves educational access for all Americans. This bill is absolutely necessary to redress the damage that a decade of attacks and underfunding by the Reagan and Bush administrations have inflicted on our students, their families, and our productivity as a nation. This shortsighted failure to invest in better student aid, institutional support, and higher education programs, is nothing less than a blow to our national security…If we fail [to pass this legislation], if we continue to undervalue the economic benefits of education and training for all citizens, what hope do we have for a strong, viable economy in the year 2000 and beyond? (21 February 1992, p. 2901)

Representative Olver concurred: “One of the great tragedies of the 1980’s is that this country and this Government has overspent and overspent on

156 

A. L. PALMADESSA

misplaced priorities. Now is the time to change our priorities” (25 March 1992, p. 6861). This was the charge of Congress in 1992. The Opposition Although the need for federal funds to support higher education were clearly well-argued and the past success was eloquently positioned as a reason to vote in favor of the 1992 amendments, there was still opposition. Those who opposed the legislation fit into two categorical positions: those who considered the HEA a competition for other education-related agendas before Congress, or those who were not satisfied with the processes and results of aid allocation. Competition for attention to the HEA was the consideration of the population of high school graduates not interested in attending college, rather planning on the transition from school to work. Representatives and Senators argued that this was not a population to be ignored; they were vital to the economy and deserved attention and support. This support was needed from vocational training, and there were institutions in place, but they were undersupported to meet this need. Unskilled jobs were expected to be limited in the future, making job training, skilled craftsmen, and on-site experiences very important for those who did not wish to pursue a college degree but wanted to enter the workforce prepared to be successful. Considering the importance of this aspect of education and training, leaders agreed to keep the school to work needs separate from the HEA and planned to continue research and hearings on the matter through the labor and workforce, not education, committees (Congressional Record, 24 January 1992). Critics suggested that the reauthorization did not rectify issues found in previous reauthorizations or could not reconcile how Congress could increase funding in a recession. The increase in funding centered around the question of whether or not Pell should be an entitlement. First, there were questions as to whether or not this could even be funded by the government, given the sheer number of students who could potentially qualify (Sen. Hatch, 20 February 1992). Second, “[w]e have heard repeated calls for greater accountability. Increasingly, Americans are wondering if Congress can really be trusted with their tax dollars” (Senator Kassebaum, 20 February 1992, p.  2754). Given this concern, how could Congress “offer more generous assistance to students at a time when budget constraints leave little room for significant growth…establishing a new entitlement program has consequences far beyond the immediate gains” leading

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

157

to spending that is “virtually uncontrollable” exacerbating the burden of debt for the federal government (Sen. Kassebaum, 20 February 1992, p. 2755). Critics also argued the new amendments did not go far enough, that instead of “making a long-term investment” and “shift our nation’s priorities…we have chosen to maintain the status quo” (Rep. Unsoeld, 25 March 1992, p. 6847). Senator Durenberger argued that the system was archaic, because “the 21st century challenge we face in higher education” cannot be adequately met with “our current 1960’s era system of student grants and loans” (21 February 1992, p. 2907). Further complicating the entitlement debate was the well-documented abuse of federal financial aid. There were cases of fraud that raised concern when considering making grant money more readily available. Although fraudulent acquisition of funds or use of federal student aid for non-­ education-­related expenses was not a sweeping issue in 1992, it was a valid concern. This was not an issue of individuals in all cases either; there were institutions that were guilty of abusing the system as well, taking advantage of student demographics that caused members to question the expansion of need-based grants. A way to combat the fraud was greater oversight, which was costly, and outside of accreditation standards (Congressional Record, 20 February 1992). In addition to members of Congress taking issue with the reauthorization package, President Bush did not support all aspects of proposed amendments. Senator Kennedy provided an overview of the challenges from the Bush administration early in the 1992 debates. It was noted that in the last eight budgets, President Reagan and then-Vice President Bush, followed by President Bush, reduced funding to the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants and attempted to phase the need-based aid out of the budget. In the most recent five budgets, Senator Kennedy noted that elimination of the work-study program, and Perkins loans were also presented as means for the federal budget to save money at the expense of the neediest students (Sen. Kennedy, 20 February 1992). Given these realities and the ever-present national economic difficulties, the 1992 reauthorization kept the HEA on track but left plenty of issues and needs for debate in the next cycle, in 1998. Accomplishments in 1992 and Challenges for 1998 The 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act was a significant restructuring of the legislation, as promised by Congressional leaders who

158 

A. L. PALMADESSA

did not want to “just tinker (sic.) with the edges as the two previous rewrites had done” (Moehlmann, 1992, p. 730). Included in these reauthorizations were 55 individual bills, focused on encouraging women and people of color to seek higher education and careers in science and engineering, expanding financial support for nontraditional- and middle-­ income families most specifically, direct loan programs, increase in limit on Stafford Loans, loans to independent students (graduate and undergraduate), and raising the Pell Grant funds for the lowest income groups from $2400 to $3700 on an annual basis. The reauthorization also required outreach programs to help families understand the very complex options of financial aid (Moehlmann, 1992). These additions were not without controversy and would serve as the baseline for conversations for the next reauthorization as well as many other related, but not HEA affiliated, actions that impact student access to higher education in the 1990s. Also important in the 1992 reauthorization was the increase in requirements for colleges’ and universities’ sexual assault policies. This included victims’ rights and the procedures institutions committed to follow once an allegation or a violation occurred. In an effort to increase campus safety more broadly, the rise in racial and sexual harassment cases were noted as important considerations for Congress, and not to be overlooked in this reauthorization. This was an effort to minimize additional trauma and to make sure that allegations and violations were taken seriously, addressed, and not ignored by college administrators. The addition of Hispanic Serving Institutions to Title III was a significant step towards racial equity and access to higher education for more disadvantaged populations. This was a long-fought issue that started in the 1980s and was given attention through study but did not reach the level of HEA support and funding until 1992. It was finally recognized that the Hispanic population was highly disadvantaged due to poverty that impacted their k-12 studies and preparation for college, as well as the likelihood of success in college. Placing the HSIs under Title III meant that the institutions that serve large populations of Hispanic students would now receive funding for retention programs and also be eligible for additional grants.

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

159

The Clinton Administration Unlike his predecessor, President Clinton valued policies of equal opportunity, particularly those that fell under the umbrella of affirmative action. For education, this was realized through two specific initiatives, the Hispanic Education Plan and the African American Advisory Board. Not only did these initiatives contribute to understanding the needs of these marginalized populations, but more federal funding was dedicated to HSIs and HBCUs. In addition to the focus on specific populations, the Clinton administration supported the largest federal investment since the 1960s in education policy more broadly. From the Head Start Amendments in 1994 and the Improving Americas Schools Act for k-12 to legislation focused on postsecondary education, Goals 2000: Educate America, School-to-Work Opportunities Act, Direct Lending and Pay-as-You Can Loans, among other legislation with tangential impacts on education at all levels, it was clear that the Clinton administration was prepared to support American education and revitalize the role of the federal government in educational institutions (Baptiste et al., 2005). President Clinton reaffirmed his commitment to more equitable access to higher education in his State of the Union Address when he promised to make the first two years of college free. To do this, Congress would have to authorize a significant increase in funds for low-income students and pass proposed tax relief legislation (Kane, 1997). Given the rise in tuition due to less state funding, federal aid not increasing at the rate of tuition, a transition to loans over grants, and a lack of cost-effective choices for low-income students, it was a very ambitious promise from the president in a challenging policy context (McPherson & Schapiro, 1997; Massey, 1997). Although the goal of making the first two years’ tuition free did not come to fruition, this did not prevent the Clinton administration from making strides particularly in tax laws and revisions in loan programs, as over the course of both terms in office, there was extensive policy activity, albeit not always in the favor of those who most needed financial support for higher education. Preparing for the 1998 Reauthorization In 1994, President Clinton appointed the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. The

160 

A. L. PALMADESSA

report of this commission, Our Nation on the Fault Line: Hispanic American Education, issued in 1996, was the President’s attempt to rectify the barriers preventing funding to HSIs through policy recommendations. As a result of this report, the federal government stepped in to help alleviate some of the challenges implicit in the new policy caveat regarding HSIs. Recommendations made in the 1996 report informed the 1998 reauthorization, albeit all challenges were not rectified. One distinct issue in the 1998 cycle was the discontent and tension between HSIs and HBCUs, how they appeared and were defined in Title III, but also how their needs were conflated and not recognized as distinct needs for the specific populations. The fissures between the two institution types were prevalent in academic research in the late 1990s but were not brand new. The issues distinct to the Hispanic and African American communities were evidenced in the Civil Rights Movement but faded into the background of policy circles in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, only to reemerge as a hot button topic in the 1990s. This was in part due to the sheer increase in the Latino population in the US, resulting in more college aged students of color in the late 1990s. Thus, in 1998, the reauthorization removed HSIs from Title III, the home of the HBCU policies, and placed HSIs in Title V, keeping the institution types distinct and separating the financial needs and processes so that there was no confusion or fear of misdistribution of funds (MacDonald et al., 2007). A related policy initiative under President Clinton that prevented a vulnerable, marginalized community from seeking higher education was the welfare reform measures of 1996. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA 1996) counteracted access to higher education as a means to improve the financial status of low-income families. According to Adair (2001), the population most impacted by this legislation were single mothers of color. Higher education access legislation was promoted as a means to eliminate poverty and support those who needed further education the most; when the welfare reform legislation was enacted, the provisions set forth made it impossible for the most impoverished people to seek higher education. Adair (2001) posits: The process of earning postsecondary undergraduate and graduate degrees can and does break otherwise inviolate cycles of intergenerational poverty. Becoming college educated transforms the way poor single mothers think, write, speak, act, work, parent, befriend, and love. Education is important to

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

161

all citizens; it is absolutely essential to those who must go on to face continued obstacles of racism, classism, and sexism, to those who have been distanced and disenfranchised from the U.S. mainstream culture, and to those who have suffered lifetimes of oppression and marginalization. (p. 219)

The welfare reforms of 1996 placed an emphasis on work and the goal of people earning a wage that would lead to financial independence or at least remove from the welfare threshold. The provisions of the PRWORA 1996 required a work-first eligibility through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, limiting the ability for low-income welfare recipients the opportunity to pursue higher education or training, something that would elevate their earning potential. This, Adair (2001) argued, was one of the most debilitating measures included in the 1996 legislation and a direct reversal of previous programs that supported education as equal to work, such as the JOBS education and training programs and other temporary aid for families with dependent children. The new provisions forced welfare recipients to withdraw from higher education if they were enrolled and seek a lower paying job. This is a counterintuitive policy as the “nation passionately embraces the conviction that access to education is the pathway to social and economic mobility” the most vulnerable populations are “denied access to education that could positively alter the course of their lives” (Adair, 2001, p. 225). This counterproductive policy perspective was maintained throughout the mid-­1990s and was reinforced in the next reauthorization of the HEA in 1998. The curious climate and political transition away from access for the most disadvantaged in favor of supporting middle- and upper-middle-­ income students solidified the president’s tax initiatives, welfare reforms, and his indication of interest to use federally backed scholarships. As a result, a transition away from grants in favor of subsidized loans and tax relief was not in preparation for the 1998 reauthorization so leaders at the national level developed a parallel funding program for higher education through tax relief programs. The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act reinforced what many states were already doing—instead of reducing tuition, tax programs were used to offset tuition costs (Johnson, 1998). This may benefit students from higher-income brackets but clearly created challenges for students from lower incomes. The federal HOPE Scholarship and the Lifelong Learning Credit were central to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that also included programs that allowed for student loan interest as a deduction and the expansion of

162 

A. L. PALMADESSA

IRAs for educational purposes. These programs assist students already enrolled in college, not those seeking higher education, and ultimately assists those from middle- and upper-income brackets. This is yet another policy that further marginalizes the most vulnerable groups as those with incomes below the taxable level are left out of this opportunity. Although this change in 1997 actually revoked MISAA (1978), borrowing was elevated through changes in the loan programs. The borrowing limit on subsidized Stafford loans was increased and an unsubsidized Stafford Loan Program was initiated. The shift to direct aid to students instead of support through the institution was complete, and the vision of increased access was lost (Mumper, 2003). As Mumper (2003) argues, “although part of the philosophy and actualization of goals may have been achieved, it has not been in the manner that the Commission members likely imagined and comes with an orientation toward loan-based funding that is not in line with their aims” (p. 427). With President Clinton’s vision, student loans were supported by federal capital, giving the federal government increased authority over higher education funding more broadly (Gilbert & Heller, 2013). How this will impact institutions and students was not yet evident; as Wolanin (1998) pointed out shortly after the reauthorization, “tax policy and student financial aid are now closely linked, with consequences yet to be determined” (p. 58). The privatization of Sallie Mae in 1997, originally created in 1972 as a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE), did not help this situation and caused many lower-income students to opt out of higher education. When SLMA (Sallie Mae) was created in 1972, the rationale was to have a government-­backed lending firm that focused on aiding the most financially high-risk students. As the HEA was reauthorized and adapted over time, the GSE designation was not considered necessarily vital to student financial support. In 1992, the changes in direct loans prompted Sallie Mae to advocate for privatization. The argument in Congress to allow Sallie Mae to pursue privatization is that the same needs were not present in the late 1990s, the marketplace was more competitive for student loans in general, and there were shifts at the federal level regarding how loans and grants should be awarded. Looking forward to 1998, it was argued that the HEA reauthorization had the potential to impact GSEs more broadly, albeit not in an effort to privatize all funding sources associated with the HEA or low-income students (Dean et al., 1999).

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

163

Congressional Debates, 1998 The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 were focused on five provisions that the Clinton administration supported. Interest rates on student loans were cut, children from disadvantaged backgrounds were the focus of preparation programs, teacher training was included, distance education opportunities and growth were an important aspect, and models for more efficient execution of government-provided aid programs were all central to this reauthorization packet (The White House, 1998). How to accomplish these goals, how the HEA could service these aspirations, and what this meant for the legacy of the HEA were central debates in Congress in 1997 and 1998, with residual influence of the tax debates in 1996 and 1997. Equity Equitable access to higher education in the late 1990s focused upon specific marginalized populations and low- and middle-income students. Representative Owens summarized the goals of the Congress’s opportunity to reauthorize the HEA when he stated: “Let us just consider everybody equal and take care of those who happen to be unfortunate economically all across the board so that white poor and African American poor and the Hispanic poor are all treated equally” (28 April 1998, p. H 2396). In his argument supporting the HEA reauthorization package, Higher Education for the twenty-first Century, and calling for even more emphasis for those in need, Representative Owens reminded the House that there were far fewer African American and Hispanic students who attended US colleges and universities. Unfortunately, Owens noted, there were many who challenged the current affirmative action policies and sought to overturn the policies that actually supported access to higher education for the marginalized groups. Representative Owens argued in favor of affirmative action policies, weaving current information with historical truths: …the great debate right now with respect to affirmative action and the problem of trying to provide diversity on higher education campuses by taking into consideration certain matters that go beyond just the scores on the SATs and the averages in courses in high school and that great debate…You have a drastic reduction in the number of Hispanics and African American students who are in the higher education freshman class…If we are going to

164 

A. L. PALMADESSA

go that route, and there are people who argue that affirmative action is not good, but if we have proposals and programs that seek to provide more help for people who are disadvantaged, people who need help because they are poor, well, that is across the board. You know, consider race. You do not consider ethnicity, you just consider the fact that they are disadvantaged, they need help, that that is the way to go…The people [who] want to end affirmative action…arge that we do not want any consideration of ethnicity. Let us forget about the 232 years of slavery and the descendents of slavery who did not have a chance to accumulate any weatlth, and if you did not have the chance to accumulate any wealth, the whole family structure and the whole supportive atmosphere that breeds, that creates, middle-class people who are more successful in the formal education structure, forget about that they said. (28 April 1998, p. H 2396)

The ugly truth of history is illuminated here to remind the majority-white Congress that there is a reason why some are more disadvantaged than others, and for these historical reasons, it is not the fault of the individuals, it is the fault of the systems that placed them in the subordinate position. Eliminating affirmative action would not only hinder the current challenge to give people an equitable opportunity to pursue higher education, but it would ignore the cycles of poverty and injustice that the nation was built upon and trying to rectify through access and equity policies. Importantly, in his passionate argument, Representative Owens noted the need to focus on several populations that happened to also be impoverished, in addition to the racially disadvantaged position. Without affirmative action, more opportunity programs were needed to replace the equitable intent of affirmative action. If not, people in these impoverished and disadvantaged groups were arguably purposefully denied opportunity. These were the people most in need of an equitable shot at higher education, and this sentiment was supported by other Congressional leaders. Hispanic students and the institutions that serve them were an important part of the HEA in 1998. Representative Hinojosa, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, noted the importance of this reauthorization to pay careful attention to this subgroup. He argued that if Congress was in fact supporting equitable access to higher education, all students must be considered when planning distribution of aid and programs. He stated, “each mind is a world…and this bill helps us in moving towards that end…for minority and disadvantaged students” (26 February 1998, p. H 655). Specifically, Title III was expanded to include tribal colleges and Hispanic-serving colleges and universities. This was important as

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

165

Hinojosa noted that “currently, Hispanics have the highest drop-out rate in the Nation, nearly three times that of Caucasians and African-American students. They also have the lowest rates for attending college. This is a national tragedy. It must be changed…” (28 February 1998, p. H 655). Two months later, Representative Hinojosa stated his gratitude of the inclusion of aid specific for Hispanic students noting that the 1998 reauthorization package would assist the 1.2 million Hispanic students enrolled in colleges and universities, as well as the 166 colleges that qualified as Hispanic serving institutions (29 April 1998, p. H 2522). Representative Sanchez also acknowledged the importance of HSIs in this reauthorization but also the inclusion of tribally controlled colleges and Native American students in non-tribal institutions; another unique group but with fewer affiliated institutions (29 April 1998). Another population not considered in the equity calculations before were parents. Students who desire a higher education but have the added responsibility of caring for children were in a marginalized position. Many of these students either opted not to attend college or did not complete it due to responsibilities at home. In the 1998 reauthorization, parents, women who were mothers in particular, were a focus of the reauthorization effort. One solution offered to parents was the use of Pell Grant money for child care, not just use child care expenses to calculate need level. A portion of the federal aid served as a voucher for educational expenses outside of tuition, including child care (Congressional Record, 29 April 1998). Not only was this an effort to help more students who were parents attend college, but this was considered an opportunity for women, specifically, to become self-supporting. Representative Price offered, “more and more young mothers are pursuing college degrees. For some, it is a matter of making the transition from welfare to work” (30 April 1998, p. H 2693). Senator Wellstone was one of the most outspoken supporters of the effort to provide childcare for mothers in college: We have to make this modification because right now what is happening is that in too many cases…women, single parents with small children who are on the path to economic self-sufficiency because they are going to schools, are essentially being driven out of school. This is crazy. We shouldn’t do this. (9 July 1998, p. S 7796)

Senator Durbin echoed this position asking his colleagues to support Senator Wellstone when he stated:

166 

A. L. PALMADESSA

What the Senator from Minnesota is asking us to do is to open our eyes, to go beyond the clichés, look at the real people who are now making the life struggle to come off welfare and into an independent state and a state where they can raise their families in dignity…let us have the flexibility to recognize when people are making an honest and determined effort. Let us not set up these barriers and walls to progress. Let us join in a partnership and hold our hand out to help these people come up that ladder to success…when it comes to education, it should go out without debate and really without controversy here; that if we have people who are moving on track to training and education which liberates them from welfare dependency, we shouldn’t constrict them with rules or with our laws or our legal stereotypes. (9 July 1998, p. S 7796)

In addition to vouchers, the best way to support this specific population of students and their needs was through the addition of campus grants to build childcare facilities. Colleges with students in need of this equity measure were now able to fund the creation of facilities and programs to support parent-students (Congressional Record, 10 July 1998). Violence against women on campuses was once again positioned as an equity issue by members of Congress in 1998. Representative Woolsey noted that “20 percent of college women will be victims of sexual assault at some time during their college years…College is hard enough. Women should not have that added worry of sexual assault” and called upon Congress to support preventive support through the reauthorization (29 April 1998, p. H 2521). Senator Torricelli expanded this effort to curb violence by adding an amendment, which was added to the package, regarding hate crimes. Senator Torricelli’s amendment requires reporting on hate crimes resulting in harm or property damage as a means to inform parents and students of the safety level of various schools. Before this amendment, hate crimes were limited to those involving “prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation…[this act] expands the definition of a hate crime to protect women and the disabled” (Sen. Torricelli, 29 September 1998, p. S 11074). Keeping with tradition, in 1998, a central argument in favor of increasing federal aid to higher education was for those students who are qualified but could not afford to pay tuition due to their poverty status (Congressional Record, 29 April 1998). Instead, any student who could do the work should have the opportunity to attend college; Congress reinforced this perspective, aligned with the original spirit of the law, and

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

167

focused on making loans and grants more helpful to the neediest students. Although this was the sentiment, critics noted that the Pell Grant needed to be increased further than the marked jump from $3100 to $5000 to meet the financial need. In addition, financial aid calculations were altered so that students with an income or families that had an income but otherwise could not pay the high cost of tuition were not punished. Prior to this reauthorization, students with an income were penalized before their aid was awarded. Now, working to save was considered a positive indicator of students’ dedication to higher education and not a means to lower the aid awarded (Congressional Record, 9 July 1998). Grants were not the only financial aid program considered in need of revision in 1998. Loans and the interest rates of student loans were a grave concern for Congressional leaders. Extensive private loans and high interest rates for federally subsidized loans were causing many students to either decline higher education or, upon graduation, saddle them with too much debt to be successful. If students feared the loan system and the potential debt, many opted not to attend. Some who attended were so burdened by the interest rates and payments that they had to make choices in their careers and personal lives that did not always align with their goals upon entering college. This was especially challenging for the lower-­ income groups, marginalizing their opportunities for achieving an education. In focusing on this problem, the new HEA package limited interest rates to the lowest rate in 17 years. The process for families to secure aid packages was also simplified, ensuring more equitable access to financial support (Congressional Record, 28 September 1998). Access In 1998, affordability remained the greatest barrier for access to higher education; however, the need to support those not adequately prepared for college was also an important consideration. The TRIO program remained at the forefront of consideration as a means to help students who come from impoverished backgrounds meet the demands of postsecondary education. Being impoverished was not their fault, and their lack of preparation was a direct result of that poverty (Congressional Record, 28 April 1998). Thus, including provisions to give “struggling students the opportunity to excel and to take full advantage of their education” was a goal of this reauthorization (Representative Sanchez, 29 April 1998, p. H 2523). Interestingly, the metaphor of the door to higher education was

168 

A. L. PALMADESSA

positioned slightly differently than in other debates. Senator Jeffords argued that the 1998 reauthorization “gives millions of students the financial key to unlock the door to higher education” (29 September 1998, p. S 11071). In this version of the metaphor, the door can only be opened by financial means—access is thus solely a financial issue—and the federal government maintains the key and the ability to support financial access. Senator Collins had a similar contribution when using the example of low attendance rates in her own state of Maine: “That low rate results not from lack of interest or lack of ability, but rather the lack of opportunity. The legislation we are considering today holds the key for young people of limited means to get through a door that, often for financial reasons, would otherwise remain closed to them” (29 September 1998, p. S 11087). The victories of prior legislation were strategically noted as a point of support for the 1998 package. Representative Owens gave an overview of the legislative actions that provided access to higher education for all those who desired it. He praised the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 as imperative to the nation’s success, as the programs these institutions focused on were applied to the needs of the people and the nation at that time. Applied sciences, agriculture, and mechanical arts, as well as teachers’ colleges, were all necessary for the US to move forward after the Civil War. This also expanded to include colleges for underrepresented populations more broadly, namely African Americans and women. This achievement was noted and used as a foundation to build upon; Representative Owens wanted his colleagues to produce a reauthorization package that would have that level of impact on accessibility (Congressional Record, 28 April 1998). Senator Jeffords summarized and corroborated this point when he stated that the Higher Education Act, since 1965, “has made the difference for countless millions in pursuing their dreams of a better life. The legislation we are considering today builds on the proud legacy of this Act” (29 September 1998, p. S11070). The notion that all who were capable should have access was a common theme in the 1998 debates. Plainly stated by Senator Dodd, “We cannot discuss the Higher Education Act, which is centrally about ensuring access to higher education, without discussing cost” (9 July 1998, p. S 7784). Unfortunately, the cost of higher education was a continual barrier with costs rising exponentially, preventing many families and students from even considering higher education. Cost, in effect, became the leading decision-maker for many Americans who sought higher education. That

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

169

was an issue that Senator Dodd (9 July 1998) argued should not be a deciding factor, rather students should be focusing on institution types, majors, and career paths. One of the goals of this reauthorization was to tackle the rationale for the 304% increase in tuition over 20 years and to hold institutions accountable for the financial decisions driving this exponential rate (Sen. Dodd, 9 July 1998). Access for those with little means, the rationale for the original HEA, remained a central theme and a goal that was still out of reach in 1998. Without major changes at either the federal level, i.e., more aid, or a revision in policies at the state and institutional level, this formidable barrier would be unmoved, keeping society in a stratified system, perpetuating the haves and have-nots (Palmadessa, 2019). Considering the task at hand and all of the barriers to access, there was resounding support for the 1998 package from both sides of the aisle and in both houses. Legislators recognized the challenges students faced and hoped that their contributions would target populations and needs that were previously not included in the HEA, as well as financial provisions such as caps on loan interest rates. Student loans were an access issue as many students had to determine if incurring debt for college was the best financial decision. Congress responded to these concerns keeping the loans accessible and keeping the rates low. Low-interest loans, Pell Grants, and institutional aid were the only means for many students to attend higher education (Congressional Record, 28 September 1998). Supporting access for all who desire postsecondary education was the goal of this reauthorization. Representative Hinojsa (28 September 1998) stated: “Simply put, H.R. 6 will go a long way towards strengthening higher education for the next century. This bill will expand postsecondary education opportunities for low-income individuals and increase the affordability of postsecondary education for middle income families” (p. H 9153). Representative Hastings supported the 1998 amendments claiming that “this legislation will ensure that all Americans wishing to pursue a higher education will continue to have that opportunity” (29 April 1998, p. H 2511). This was of utmost importance, Hastings continued, because “the quality of our higher education system in the United States has long been the envy of the entire world. At the same time, access to higher education for all deserving young people has been one of the driving forces behind two centuries of innovation and economic growth” (29 April 1998, P. H 2511). Representative McKeon echoed this sentiment and connected access not only as a means to support national goals but as a way to rectify the cycle of poverty that keeps able students from

170 

A. L. PALMADESSA

attending college. As a former teacher and higher education administrator, he used his experience and expertise to support the goals of the reauthorization. This bill, he argued: …will increase the affordability of our institutions of higher education and advance social mobility in our country…we know that institutions of higher education advance knowledge, provide community service, and serve as the basis for social and economic mobility for millions of our young people who come from backgrounds with few social advantages and economic resources. (McKeon, 29 April 1998, p. H 2514)

Also supporting the notion of access to break the poverty barrier, the High Hopes Program was added to this reauthorization, a program focused on middle school students in high-poverty schools. This program was a prelude to TRIO and Upward Bound as it helped students at a much earlier point in their k-12 education to not only learn the skills to support their eligibility for college but also introduce them to the processes to attain access. To further support that effort, the financial aid application was simplified, as the complexity of the process was noted as a barrier for many students, especially first-generation students and students from the lowest socioeconomic status (Congressional Record, 29 April 1998). The Nation Higher education’s role in supporting national goals and success was clearly a rationale behind the specifics of the Higher Education Act in 1998. In contrast to many other points in history, such as in 1965, the economic status of the US was exceptional. However, higher education was still needed, and more students needed to graduate from college, in a time of excess. Representative Owens made this point very clear: “it is most unfortunate that at a time when we are enjoying the greatest prosperity the Nation probably has ever known, at a time when there is no war to absorb resources, at a time when the window of opportunity is wide open, we cannot come up with some more creative and imaginative proposals as to how we are going to proceed to educate the population” (28 April 1998, p. H 2395). Although he is criticizing the bill in its early stages, he recognizes that the nation is in an excellent position to better fund federal aid to higher education. Representative Owens continued:

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

171

…higher education in America is exceptional. We are ahead of most of the industrialized nations when they begin to make comparisons between the higher education systems among the countries…But at a time like this when we are ahead and it is clear that our higher education system has played a major role in our ability to quickly take advantage of the scientific revolution and to apply science and technology in many areas of life, including, of course, in the military area where the American people invested billions of dollars in the military research and development, a situation which is very relevant because right now the kind of prosperity we are enjoying is partially fueled and pushed by the revolution in information technology. (28 April 1998, p. H 2395)

Here, Representative Owens notes an important need for the United States: increased knowledge in information technology. This was the field noted as most important for national success in 1998. In addition to national needs for doctors, teachers, and other important sectors requiring higher education, there were an estimated 300,000 openings in information technology jobs that required at least two years of postsecondary education. This statistic is just one indication of the fact that the US needs “more and more educated people” as “one of our greatest exports is not goods but services, the services supplied by experts, and these are experts that come out of our colleges and universities that export services around the world. There will be a…greater demand for services from highly trained people in the future” (Rep. Owens, 28 April 1998, p. H 2396). This focus on knowledge capital was equated to the need to educate veterans after the World War II.  Representative Owens argued that the industrial needs of 1945 were the equivalent to the “information technology revolution, the research and development revolution” of 1998 as the industrial needs were technological, and the only means to defeat the Soviets (28 April 1998, p. 2398). The position of the nation depended and depends upon knowledge and technology, goods that the colleges and universities could supply. In this strategy of reference to historical events, World War II is equated to the context of 1998 as far as technological innovation was concerned. Although it is a stretch by any measure to equate the context of 1945 to that of 1998, the war is not against an ideological foe but an economic enemy. The only way to combat that enemy is produce more technology and knowledge products for the neoliberal, knowledge-based economy.

172 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Stating his support of the bill, Representative Roemer provided his colleagues with the following for thought: “Father Hesberg, who has been noted as a leader in America on education, religious and civil rights issues, once said, ‘As education goes, so goes America’” (28 September 1998, p. H 9156). If the trajectory of education drives the success of the nation, Representative Roemer argued, then it is the duty of Congress to enact a program that will make sure the US higher education system remains the best in the world, so that the best graduates are produced, so that the nation can continue to be prosperous. Senator Reed reinforced this position in his support of the 1998 package, “This legislation does so much to improve the quality of educational opportunity in the United States. One of the keys to our country, not just its economic prowess but its social progress, is the ability of all our citizens to go on to higher education” (29 September 1998, p. S 11072). After all, “the opportunity to pursue an education, particularly a college education, has long been a hallmark of American society” (Senator Feinstein, 29 September 1998, p. S 11075). If individuals succeed, the nation reaps the reward; this strategy was prevalent in an economically based argument in the late 1990s. “To be competitive in the global economy, we need to provide our youth with the means to better their education. This is the essence of the American dream” (Representative Roukema, 29 April 1998, p. H 2514). “Our great national resource…is the wonderful minds of the people who work…who produce products and, as a result of producing those products, which are competitive around the world, create prosperity jobs, and a good lifestyle,” Senator Gregg added (9 July 1998, p. S 7787). For this to fully support the nation, Senator Gregg argued, “the key to that, of course, is quality education, and first-class education depends on having students who have the ability to pick and choose among colleges and are able to afford the college of their choice to attend. In order to accomplish that, they have to have support, in many instances” (9 July 1998, p. S 7787). Senator Johnson summarized this position, “With the increased competition faced by workers in the global economy, the importance of these programs is even greater today, not only for students but also for our nation’s economy” (10 July 1998, p. S 7961). In this excerpt, students are representatives of the nation; the students are not competing with global positions, but the nation is competing with the world for prominence in the global economy. Therefore, the success of one is necessary for the success of others—the US can only be as successful if the individual members of society meet the national goals.

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

173

Democracy The nation and its future are described in economic terms, as evidenced above, leaving democracy and democratic ideals as an afterthought in relationship to higher education and the purpose of relevant legislation in the 1998 debates. Senator Dodd made this argument on the floor on 9 July 1998: …America has long been known as the land of promise. We take great pride in that as Americans. Those words are used at every national holiday (sic.)— ‘a land of promise’. I think the foundation of that promise has been, during the more than two centuries of our existence as a nation, education. A democracy as complicated, as sophisticated, and as subtle as ours could not succeed without an educated population. Education is also at the root of our economic strength. Without an educated population, you cannot remain on the cutting edge of industry and business. (p. S 7784)

In this excerpt, Senator Dodd explains that democracy depends on an educated workforce that supports the national economy through the skills to maintain a competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Economic stability is therefore positioned as the foundation of democracy. This reinforces the notion that the American dream is realized through individual economic status, as earnings support the American way of life (Rep. Hinojosa, 28 September 1998). Representative Lowey offered, “Education is society’s great equalizer. It enables Americans to participate in democracy and pursue the American dream” (29 April 1998, p. H 2514). This equalizer is not positioned as focused on individuals. Rather, as Senator Kerry argued, “As our economy becomes increasingly knowledge-based, this legislation represents an important step in helping individuals achieve the American dream” (29 September 1998, p. S 11074). In other words, the American dream is to be a contributor to the knowledge-based global market that maintains US dominance in that market. The only other mention of democracy as a reason for supporting the Higher Education Act in 1998 was tethered to an historical anecdote. Representative Roemer concluded his supportive remarks with: “Thomas Jefferson, who founded the very first public institution in this country, the University of Virginia, once said, and I quote, ‘The less wealthy people would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government’. Thomas Jefferson, I think today, would be very proud of the higher education

174 

A. L. PALMADESSA

system in this Nation that is the best in the world” (29 April 1998, p. H 2520). Referencing a founding father is a discursive mechanism often used by national leaders; unfortunately, in this text, Representative Roemer is referring to a democratic ideal that is not represented in the 1998 conversations. Assuming the accuracy of the Jefferson quote, not considering the inaccuracy of the founding of UVA as noted by Roemer, the founding father referenced the foundations of democracy. Democratic systems require that individuals understand their rights and expectations as members of a larger entity that acts, in an ideal framework, on their behalf. Jefferson does not state that a democracy exists and is driven by economic status. In effect, there is a conflation of capitalism and democracy in the representatives understanding of democratic ideals. This is not to argue the representative does not understand democracy, rather it is an example of how deeply embedded the discourses of the knowledge-based global economy had become in American practices. Pro-Education There were no questions regarding the validity of offering federal support for higher education or continuing aid programs in the 1998 Congressional debates. The reauthorization was noted by representatives in both houses, from both parties, as an important duty and marked achievement for the 105th Congress. It was lauded as a bicameral and bipartisan bill, with very little disagreement. To some, such as Representative Owens, this meant it did not go far enough; support should have increased more and made a larger impact on access. To others, this was a legacy they were proud to support and found victory in extension of Pell dollars, lower interest rates for loans, teacher preparation programs, and many other specific needs determined as the nation was preparing for the twenty-first century. In supporting the 1998 reauthorization, Representative Owens referenced the importance of public institutions, citing Jefferson’s vision for UVA and reminding colleagues of the importance of the Morrill Acts and the National Defense Education Act in the effort to give more individuals opportunities to pursue higher education (Congressional Record, 28 April 1998). Representative McKeon noted that the modern universities were the envy of the world, and without the institutions and the education they provide, the nation would suffer (Congressional Record, 29 April 1998). Provisions regarding crime on campus, teacher preparation, and regulations for students found guilty of drug use were all provisions in the

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

175

reauthorization that protected not only the students at individual schools but also promoted better k-12 education and brought awareness to hate crimes, violence against women, and the drug epidemic among the youth (Congressional Record, 13 July 1998). All of the provisions, taken together, strengthened the nation and postsecondary institutions (Congressional Record, 29 September 1998). The Opposition There were few dissenting voices in Congressional debates in 1998. The few arguments present throughout debate was rather surprising. As Representative Owens stated, “I have been here now for 16 years, and this is the third reauthorization I have gone through, and I have never seen it so quiet” (28 April 1998, p. H 2394). Although fewer dissenting voices are assumed to be positive, Owens argued it simply meant the legislators did not push the agenda far enough, they should and could have been bolder in their amendments. Instead, he argued, what resulted was simply status quo and thus a missed opportunity (29 April 1998). One point of contention throughout the debates was related to welfare. Senator Wellstone was keenly aware of the need for many young parents to have access to childcare so that they could attend college, many of which needed and desired an education to move themselves, and their children, out of the welfare system. There was a barrier within the welfare system that often caused parents to choose between work and school, or work and services, or school and services. The issue is that once an individual is removed from the welfare services, and does not have an education, what type of income and life would they be able to provide their families? Arguably, the low wages and lack of job security would actually relegate these individuals and their children to an even worse position. This was at least marginally addressed by the campus childcare initiatives, but this does not cover elementary-age children who would return to an empty home while, if they were able, parents were working. The children and parents at risk were the most disadvantaged. Senator Wellstone felt strongly that the welfare reforms needed to coincide with the goals of the Higher Education Act in making this not an either/or decision, but a true means for people to defeat the cycle of poverty (Congressional Record, 9 July 1998). Senator Durbin agreed: “What [Senator Wellstone] is asking us to do is to open our eyes, go beyond the stereotypes, go beyond the clichés, look at the real people who are now making the life struggle to

176 

A. L. PALMADESSA

come off welfare and into an independent state and a state where they can raise their families in dignity” (9 July 1998, p. S 7796). Another hurdle for Congress to conquer in this reauthorization was difference in opinion between the sponsors of the bill and President Clinton. Senator McConnell argued that the President was opposed to banks and third-party lenders working with students, instead calling for a single-lender system operated by the Department of Education. This was a turn from the President’s position in 1993 when he supported competition among lenders in the budget as it was considered a benefit to students. McConnell argued that the President changed course and wanted to be reliant upon only the Department of Education for student loans, an operation the Senator did not agree the department could handle. Senator McConnell argued that the Department was inefficient and did not have experts in lending or administration of student-specific loans. He corroborated with evidence from the previous year when Congress had to step in and pass the Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 2007 after the Department of Education ceased processing loan applications, successfully gaining support from colleagues to address the loan interest rates and implementing accountability measurements for lenders who offer student loans (Congressional Record, 13 July 1998). Preparing for the Twenty-First Century There were many issues left after the 1998 reauthorization. One issue raised by scholars critical of this reauthorization was that merit-based aid programs excluded many disadvantaged populations due to grade point average and test score requirements. This, in turn, connected to disparities in race of students who are awarded this aid, negating the principle of access through student aid programs. As Mumper (2003) pointedly argues: The emergence of this new generation of federal and state student aid programs has helped to undermine the goal of equal opportunity that characterized the earlier programs. These are explicitly not need-based programs. Instead, they are designed to make higher education more affordable to middle- and even upper-income families. There is substantial evidence that these programs are creating a future in which government spending on student aid is ever increasing and yet the access available to lower-income students is ever-diminishing. (p. 111)

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

177

This position was a difficult reality, given the progress of the legislation and the needs of the nation, which could easily support expansion of access. However, what remains is a political divide over whether or not the impoverished deserved the support, and if the return on investment was worth the risk. This is a sad commentary on the progress of equality in the US. As the twenty-first century approached, the neoliberal state was solidified and knowledge capital became a priority. However, this does simply translate to a return to higher education investment and support from the federal government. The next presidential election brought forth a return to conservatism, and new conflicts created a particularly volatile context for the next reauthorization. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the focus of the nation shifted back to defense but also to the superiority and image of the US as a beacon of hope and prosperity, an identity that needed reinforcement.

References Adair, V.  C. (2001). Poverty and the (broken) promise of higher education. Harvard Educational Review, 71(2), 217–239. Baptiste, H. P., Orvosh-Kamenski, H., & Kamenski, C. J. (2005). American presidents and their attitudes, beliefs, and actions surrounding education and multiculturalism. Multicultural Education, 12(3), 28–41. Cofer, J., & Somers, P. (2001). What influences student persistence at two-year colleges? Community College Review, 29(3), 56–76. Congressional Record. (1992, 13 March). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1992/03/13 Congressional Record. (1992, 20 February). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1992/02/20 Congressional Record. (1992, 21 February). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1992/02/21 Congressional Record. (1992, 24 January). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1992/01/24 Congressional Record. (1992, 25 March). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1992/03/25 Congressional Record. (1992, 26 March). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1992/03/26 Congressional Record. (1992, 8 July). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1992/07/08

178 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Congressional Record. (1998, 10 July). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/07/10 Congressional Record. (1998, 13 July). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/07/13 Congressional Record. (1998, 26 February). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/02/26 Congressional Record. (1998, 28 April). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/04/28 Congressional Record. (1998, 28 February). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/02/28 Congressional Record. (1998, 28 September). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/09/28 Congressional Record. (1998, 29 April). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/04/29 Congressional Record. (1998, 29 February). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/02/29 Congressional Record. (1998, 29 September). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/09/29 Congressional Record. (1998, 30 April). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/04/30 Congressional Record. (1998, 9 July). https://www.congress.gov/ bound-­congressional-­record/1998/07/09 Dean, J. E., Moskowitz, S. L., & Cipriani, K. L. (1999). Implications of the privatization of Sallie Mae. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 11(1), 56–80. Doyle, W. R. (2010). U.S. senator’s ideal points for higher education: Documenting partisanship, 1965–2004. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(5), 619–644. Geiger, R.  L. (2019). American higher education since World War II: A history. Princeton University Press. Gilbert, C. K., & Heller, D. E. (2013). Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman Commission and federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2011. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(3), 417–443. Hannah, S. B. (1996). The Higher Education Act of 1992: Skills, constraints, and the politics of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(5), 498–527. Johnson, P. (1998). 10 steps to help the planning-impaired pay for college. Journal of Financial Planning, 11(2), 96–99. Kane, T. J. (1997). Beyond tax relief: Long-term challenges in financing higher education. National Tax Journal, 50(2), 335–349. MacDonald, V.-M., Botti, J. M., & Clark, L. H. (2007). From visibility to autonomy: Latinos and higher education in the U.S., 1965–2005. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 474–504.

6  PREPARING FOR CHALLENGE AND SEEKING CHANGE… 

179

Massey, W.  E. (1997). Uncertainties in the changing academic profession. Daedalus, 126(4), 67–94. McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1997). Financing undergraduate education: Designing national policies. National Tax Journal, 70(3), 557–571. Moehlmann, J. (1992). Education amendments. Bioscience, 42(9), 730. Mumper, M. (2003). The future of college access: The declining role of public higher education in promoting equal opportunity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585, 97–117. Palmadessa, A. L. (2014). Higher education and the discursive construction of American national identity, 1946–2013 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro. Palmadessa, A. L. (2017). America’s College Promise: Situating President Obama’s Initiative in the History of Federal Higher Education Aid and Access Policy. Community College Review, 45(1), 52–70. Palmadessa, A. L. (2019). Higher education divided: National expectations and the bifurcation of purpose and national identity. Palgrave Macmillan. The White House. (1998, 7 October). Fact sheet on the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Office of the Press Secretary. https://gov.info.library. unt.edu/npr/library/news/100798.html Thelin, J.  R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. Wolanin, T.  R. (1998). Lobbying for higher education in Washington. Change, 30(5), 58–62.

CHAPTER 7

Higher Education Access, Neoliberalism, and an Uncertain Future: Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act in the Twenty-­First Century

The twenty-first century began with challenge. The solidification of neoliberalism, the global market, the knowledge-based economy, and terrorism dramatically impacted not only the goals and purpose of higher education but also how to best employ higher education to help the nation and its people. The first decade of the new millennium was dominated by national security concerns, fear of terrorist attacks, and was a period led by a conservative president and a sympathetic but divided Congress. Higher education and who should attend and for what purpose was a healthy debate in the first ten years of the twenty-first century but was consistently focused on one thing: dominance in the global marketplace. This quest for knowledge products and human capital was the result of the solidification of the neoliberal turn in the American political economy. Ideals of neoliberalism dominated national identity in the United States and made productivity and knowledge goods the means to measure the success of higher education. Given this now-permanent shift in ideology, reauthorization of the Higher Education Act would reflect the needs of the neoliberal capitalist state.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. L. Palmadessa, Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43706-9_7

181

182 

A. L. PALMADESSA

President George W. Bush, 2001–2009 The conservative return to the White House with the election of President Bush had serious implications for US education, tax laws, healthcare, and in the wake of terrorism, foreign policy. Bush described his conservative perspective as compassionate, one that considers not individual needs, but the best for the most while promoting self-sufficiency, responsibility of individuals, and providing opportunities for people to pursue. Education, specifically, was a point of pride for the President during his campaign as he was a staunch supporter of testing and data collection as a means to assess and address school achievement and potential challenges. His contribution to the reauthorization of the ESEA and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a sweeping education bill that required testing and progress monitoring, and support of a voucher system arguably intended to increase diversity in schools, was recognized. NCLB forced compliance as federal funding was tied to reporting of data that demonstrated schools were abiding by the revised legislation (Baptiste et al., 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 was the Bush administration’s way to regulate student learning in the k-12 sector (Lowry, 2009). Although NCLB was not directly relevant to higher education, it was related and influenced the postsecondary sector, particularly regarding teacher education. Secretary Spellings argued that the results of the accountability measures in NCLB revealed evidence that suggested that teachers were not adequately prepared, more teachers of higher quality needed to be recruited and potentially in non-traditional formats, and that the worst schools needed the best teachers to succeed (LaRock & Rodriguez-Farrar, 2005). The Future of Higher Education, According to the Federal Government Throughout the 1990s, “higher education was viewed as an instrumental end, and served a useful purpose in a broader partisan battle” that promoted tax credits as financial aid, which “did not reflect the wishes of either the higher education community or policy experts, but instead were the byproduct of a larger conflict” (Doyle, 2010, p.  626). In the first decade of the twenty-first century, political leaders considered the rising cost of tuition, the importance of higher education for individuals and the nation (particularly for job-training), and how to hold institutions

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

183

accountable and for what purpose, as the most important topics of concern for the federal government regarding higher education in the new millennium (Doyle, 2010). Congress worked diligently to protect higher education from the same regulatory intervention initiated in k-12 by NCLB and made sure that postsecondary education assessment and student learning would not be tied to federal accountability measures. The 2008 HEA reauthorization, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (and separately, the 2007 College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which focused only on loans), purposefully protected from a more intrusive role of the federal government in the work higher education. One of the most significant provisions of the 2008 reauthorization was the requirement for institutions to disclose actual cost of attendance and information regarding price increases (Lowry, 2009), ensuring the student consumer has the necessary information to make appropriate financial decisions. Cost of college attendance was an important topic of debate on the Congressional floor in 2003. Why the costs were rising and solutions to identifiable problems were of utmost concern as members agreed that the rising cost for college attendance was a significant problem. Agreement ended with the identification of the problem; why and what to do about the problem were contested. Evidence of the importance and division in opinion was obvious in the report, College Cost Crisis, released by Representative Boehner and Representative McKeon in 2003 (Doyle, 2010b). The report concluded that the rising costs in colleges were due to inefficiency of the institutions and recommended a bill to control increases in tuition with the threat of loss of Title IV funding; the opposition responded with an equally punitive measure that blamed state governments for lack of support leading to the price increases, offering to withhold federal funding if states did not adequately support colleges. Both bills were quickly defeated, leaving the subject open for further debate (Doyle, 2010b; Lowry, 2009). The high cost of college attendance was not the only barrier that prevented many able and willing students from pursuing higher education in the first decade of the twenty-first century but also admissions processes, selectivity hierarchies within American higher education, and the inadequacy of financial aid to support students from low-income families capable of attending the most prestigious and, therefore most expensive, colleges and universities. These challenges are often overlooked by policymakers simply due to the fact that more people from marginalized

184 

A. L. PALMADESSA

populations do in fact have access to colleges at a higher rate than the last 40 years. However, what is often missed in policy debates is how “the hierarchical arrangement of American higher educational institutions and the distribution of students within that institutional system” impacts equitable access (Astin & Oseguera, 2004, p. 322). Astin and Oseguera (2004) addressed this in their study of data from 1971 to 2000. They concluded that the determining factors as to who had access to the most elite institutions was dependent upon parental income and parental education, the indicators they used to measure socio-economic status. Compared to the 1971 data regarding college attendance and SES, Astin and Oseguera (2004) found that higher education was more stratified in 2000 as over half of the students entering selective colleges as freshman were from parents that were highly educated and from high-income levels. Although not terribly surprising, what is important to note is that higher education is more selective and far more stratified, even after the multiple reauthorizations of the HEA and the continued calls for increased access to higher education for the most marginalized populations (Astin & Oseguera, 2004). There is no simple answer to this challenge; however, it is obvious that more support from the federal government dedicated to students in need was a must in this historical moment. In 2004, funding of the Pell Grant was a topic of presidential hopefuls’ debates (Doyle, 2010). President Bush capitalized on this debate with the looming reauthorization in his bid for reelection. Focusing on Pell Grants as a means to help low-income students become better skilled workers, he proposed that employers work more closely with community colleges and promised an increase in Pell Grant funding to students who took advantage of these arrangements. Additionally, previsions were proposed to reward Pell recipients who took advanced courses in high school by granting these high-performing, low-income students with an extra $1000 per year for the first two years of college. Increasing such funds would require Congress to allocate an additional $33 million to the Pell Grant program (Bush, 2004). The HEA allocations expired in 2004, and legislation was passed to extend the funds one more year to 2005. This began a new series of debates and considerations for the next reauthorization packet. The reauthorization of the HEA created a lively debate in Congress in 2005. New challenges for higher education were on the docket including for-profit institutions, expansion of accountability/assessment, and distance learning (Swenson et al., 2005). The most contentious debates were how to include for-profit institutions in the federal aid programs (Swenson

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

185

et al., 2005), what the public should know about institutional assessments and outcomes (Eaton et al., 2005), the role of the federal government in higher education (Lingenfelter & Lenth, 2005), and how student aid should be allocated according to what standards (Green, 2005; Lovett, 2005; Reindl, 2005). Proprietary institutions were more prevalent in the early 2000s and were difficult to place in the hierarchy of educational institutions that receive, or should receive, federal support. The main issue the pro-for-­ profit advocates focused on was equity for the institutions in how the federal government allocated financial support. The opposition argued that for-profit institutions could not be equitably considered in the federal equation because they were not institutions for the public good. Rather, for-profit institutions were businesses that preyed on underprepared students and facilitated misuse of financial aid as a means to remain operational, not actually matriculate students (Swenson et al., 2005). Accreditation, standards, outcomes measurements, and sharing of assessment of learning was also a contentious debate. There were concerns regarding inequitable processes in institutions, unintended damage to reputation due to inability of the public to understand assessment values, and how to protect student level data from unnecessary exposure. All of these issues create challenges not just for accrediting bodies and institutions but raises questions regarding the federal role in higher education. Eaton et al. (2005) argue that: …because this issue is raised by the federal government, the arena of debate expands to include issues about governmental control of higher education. For the government to direct that higher education and accreditors provide specific types of information appears to threaten the responsible exercise of autonomy that higher education has long enjoyed when it comes to reviewing academic quality. (p. 43)

This, Lingenfelter and Lenth (2005) agreed, is the opportune time for the federal government to determine what leadership and policy roles it intends to play in higher education. Although the authors argue that the federal role should be limited, they also posit that “without federal leadership to help address the future challenges facing American higher education, we are much less likely to meet them successfully” (p.  12). The history of the relationship and current needs are prevalent in the areas of access policy, accountability measures, and the rising cost of attendance;

186 

A. L. PALMADESSA

each of these areas are opportunities for the federal government to assert authority and accomplish the true goal of American higher education: production of human capital (Lingenfelter & Lenth, 2005). Preparing a workforce that could meet the demands of the knowledge-­ based economy in the early 2000s was an important goal for national success and maintenance of the US’s identity as a world leader (Palmadessa, 2017). This, perhaps, makes financial aid not a form of support for postsecondary schools, rather “an instrument for ensuring that our citizens have the capacity to compete in the global economy and lead satisfying lives as parents, workers, and productive members of the community” (Lingenfelter & Lenth, 2005, p.  14). If higher education and degree attainment are relegated to economic output, does the federal government have an obligation to support educating as many members of the US populous as possible, or should only those who have the means or ability to assume debt pursue higher education? Therein lies an important debate. Is higher education a public good, or a private good, or some combination thereof? (Green, 2005; Palmadessa, 2014). Ultimately, higher education services both public and private needs (Reindl, 2005), but it is the duty of the government for and by the people to make sure that all who desire higher education receive that opportunity; otherwise, there is no democratic function of higher education (Palmadessa, 2017, 2023). Given the dominance of the neoliberal, knowledge-­based economy (Jessop, 2008), the national and global economy is “driven by and dependent on human capital,” making “investment from all sectors” essential (Reindl, 2005, p. 30). Thus, any disinvestment should be approached with caution, as education is essential to the success of the economy (Reindl, 2005). If this economic purpose is the most salient in the reauthorization debates of 2005, then it should also be a concern as to who receives the support, and how that financial aid to individuals reflects, or not, the quest for equitable access to higher education. The individuals most vulnerable from an economic and workforce perspective are also the most vulnerable in the social sphere. The success of the lowest-income and most disadvantaged students is an indicator of the nation’s ability to compete and sustain dominance in the global economy. This group is the largest and fastest growing strata in American society and “their opportunities and ultimate achievements will, in no small part, determine the social and economic future of our nation” (Lingenfelter & Lenth, 2005, p. 15).

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

187

In response to the debates in Congress and the perceived public opinion of higher education, Secretary Spellings established the National Commission on the Future of Higher Education in 2006 which took a close look at productivity, assessment practices and reports, and financial aid policies (Doyle, 2010). When asked why this commission was formed, Secretary Spellings stated, “I think we Americans know that higher education is the key to the American dream. We have sold the dream of college to the American people and to young people, but we need to do a lot better job of figuring out how they’re going to be successful and how it’s going to be affordable” (LaRock & Rodriguez-Farrar, 2005, p.  377). Thus, she asked the commission to focus their efforts on “accountability, affordability, accessibility, and quality” to determine what “we want and expect from our higher ed institutions and from our higher ed system in America” (LaRock & Rodriguez-Farrar, 2005, pp. 377–378). Regardless of what is determined as necessary, Spellings deemed the importance of higher education to be the preservation of “our civic democracy, to our national security, and to our continued success as a nation” (LaRock & Rodriguez-Farrar, 2005, p. 379). The HEA was not reauthorized in 2005 due to contextual factors such as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and a wave of natural disasters requiring extra funds and lack of time to focus on amendments, instead kept the status quo. Instead, the HEA programs were extended for an additional year to 2006. One change was enacted, the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (CHEA, 2006). In this set of amendments, the major considerations were how institutions of higher education (IHE) were defined, Title III and IV and other aid and grant programs of the HEA were reauthorized with minor revisions, and provisions for students impacted by Hurricane Katrina were added (CHEA, 2005). After this extension, it would not be until 2007 that the HEA would return to the floor for consideration, with debates and reauthorization ensuing the following year. Congressional Debates and the 2008 Reauthorization As expected, in 2007, the HEA was brought back before Congress for reauthorization. One of the goals of Congress in 2007 was to revise the student loan system and increase Pell Grant funding (Doyle, 2010). Each of these goals were accomplished through the reauthorization and related legislative actions. The 2007 College Cost Reduction Act facilitated a

188 

A. L. PALMADESSA

means for the federal government to remain apprised when colleges raised tuition and the rationale behind the increase. This, Congressional leaders argued, was a means to keep the consumer student informed so that they could not only make decisions regarding how to best finance their education but also understand where their tuition money was spent by the institution. In 2007, the budget reconciliation bill also addressed issues related to federal student loans, prompting the reauthorization to at least address the challenges for students in accessing loans and their ability to repay their debt. By the time the reauthorization came to the floor for a vote, the economic crisis reshaped the student loan process, and an additional act resulted, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. It was necessary at that time, in the throes of the banking crisis, for the government to step in and ensure students’ access to loans for their education. The 2008 reauthorization of the HEA was an incredibly challenging project. Not only were there new challenges that altered the needs of students in a recession, but there were serious points of contention between political parties and individual representatives in each house. One of the most heated contests was over rules; rules of debate and when and how points were to be brought before Congress to debate on matters relevant to the reauthorization. The debates had less to do with the content of the bill or amendments, but on the process by which opposition or revision was offered, or arguably, ignored. This created a multi-faceted, difficult, contentious moment in legislative history, and the HEA reauthorization is one example of the fiercely divided political climate, between and within the parties and in all branches of government in Washington more broadly. Equity Equity based on poverty (family and/or student income levels) was a prevalent theme in the 2008 reauthorization. The tagline of the supporting members of Congress is best summarized in the title of the executive summary of the reauthorization, “From Poverty to Prosperity” (22 January 2008, p. H 361). In the executive summary, one of the key points read on the floor of the House was the goal of simplifying and expanding Pell Grant awards. It was argued that “low-income youth are much less likely to attend college than their higher income peers…Pell Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students” (22 January 2008, p. H 362). Although this is a point well known and essentially accepted, the issue

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

189

highlighted in this summary was that of the cumbersome application process for financial aid. In addition to the federal aid process being a difficult and confusing process for students, particularly for those who were first-generation and/ or low-income and had little experience with loan programs, it was necessary for the government to not only ensure students’ access to federal loans but build protections for students who had to seek aid from private lenders, especially in the context of the 2008 financial crisis. Part of this protection came in the form of training financial aid officers to best help students, requirements for the financial aid advisors to disclose information to students regarding the federal and state options available to them before seeking private loans (Congressional Record, Senate, 7 March 2008). This became necessary as private lenders became predatory, and students were taken advantage of by banks facing collapse (Congressional Record, House, 11 March 2008). The COAA 2007 also limited the interest rates on federal loans, and the repayment of the federal loans was capped at no more than 15% of a graduate’s income; as for private loans, the government wanted to protect the student consumer from unbearable interest rates that would prevent equitable access to higher education (Congressional Record, Senate, 7 March 2008). Senator Kennedy, one of the most vocal supporters of the reauthorization, argued, “In today’s uncertain economy, Congress has an obligation to provide a steady hand and to shore up programs on which Americans depend. Nothing can be more important than ensuring that families can afford a college degree” (7 March 2008, p. S 1723). One of the barriers Congressional leaders faced in the 2008 reauthorization was President Bush’s budget that called for a significant decrease in funding for several opportunity grants, namely Perkins and LEAP, which the President recommended eliminating. This, Representative Altmire argued would prevent many students from pursuing higher education as these grants were “specifically targeted to needy students who otherwise wouldn’t have the opportunity to purse a higher education” (6 February 2008, p. H 606). These cuts, Representative Murphy argued, were counterintuitive as the nation was facing an impending recession, funds for higher education should be a priority not a place to cut, as creating a more educated workforce was one means to combat an economic decline (6 February 2008, p. H 606–607). Thus, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act (COAA 2007), H.R. 4137, was the best means to combat President Bush’s plans to withhold funds.

190 

A. L. PALMADESSA

The COAA 2007 included provisions specific to low-income and minority students by increasing support services on college campuses and stream-lining the aid application process (Congressional Record, 7 February 2008, p. H 628). It furthermore supported the previous year’s legislation, the College Cost Reduction Act, that reallocated funds to increase the amount of Pell Grant money a student could receive. In addition, increasing funds to TRIO and GEAR UP through COAA 2007 supported the goal of closing the gap in student achievement for low-income, minority students and their better situated peers by focusing on first-­ generation student preparation and support services. This was a concern for the 110th Congress, and it was a goal for the advocates of the HEA reauthorization to “close the college access and completion gaps for low-­ income and minority students…to improve preparations so that low-­ income and first-generation college students are ready to succeed in college academically, financially, and socially…” (Rep. Hinojosa, 7 February 2008, p. H 643). This was imperative as the gap was growing in the twenty-first century, not decreasing. To address this growth, Representative Hinojosa argued, required an increase in Pell Grant funding and targeted services for African American and Hispanic students, and the institutions that serve them. It was noted that since 1994, college completion rates increased, but the gap in that increase by race was staggering; for white students, the increase in degree attainment was 12%, for African Americans students only 5.5%, and 3% for Hispanic students. One way to address this is increased funding to students but also increased funding for the colleges and universities that serve these specific populations. Representative Hinojosa noted that minority-­ serving institutions constitute less than one-third of the total number of postsecondary schools in the US, yet “they enroll more than half of all minority students in post-secondary education” (7 February 2008, p. H 643). Native American students were a subpopulation of consequence in this reauthorization. It was noted that tribal colleges’ enrollments were up, but these institutions only serve a small percentage of the Native American student population. Whereas tribal colleges enroll approximately 16,000 Native American students, non-tribal institutions enroll nearly 150,000. However encouraging it was that almost 170,000 Native American students were in college, it was only 18% of the potential population. This is in comparison to the 42% of eligible non-Native students enrolled in US postsecondary education. Additionally, this population is less likely to

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

191

persist in college; 77% of Native Americans do not attain a higher degree in comparison to the 37% of the non-Native population. Thus, the HEA reauthorization of 2008 facilitates specific supports for Native American students in non-tribally controlled institutions, an important minority, low-income population that should not be ignored (Senator Bingaman, 31 July 2008, p. S 7849–7850). Although there was clear support for the students with the most financial need, the middle-class family and middle-class student was still a focus of the legislation and an important constituency focused upon by Congressional leaders. The middle-class families were described as “hard-­ working” and in need of “relief” in the recession of 2008. Addressing the cost of college and keeping “the doors to a higher education open by making college affordable through grants and low rate loans” was the most efficient way for individuals to attain “higher paying job and success in life” (Rep. Hastings, 7 February 2008, p. H 630). Their success was also the nation’s success and the financial crisis coupled with rising tuition costs made “a college education out of the reach for many middle-class families” (Rep. Matsui, 31 July, 2008, p. H 7643). Representative Clyburn echoed these sentiments stating the legislation would “ease the financial burdens being placed on working families paying high costs for post-­ secondary education…Our nation’s continued prosperity is dependent upon the investment that we make in securing the futures of our children and grandchildren” (7 February 2008, p. H 644). Women were also a noted population in need of support for equitable access to higher education. This subgroup was considered in the context of childcare; “It empowers small and community colleges to provide child care programs so that working mothers can attend school” (Rep. Holt, 7 February 2008, p. H 645). Given the focus on women as mothers, they were included as part of the non-traditional student population that was considered in the deliberations for the 2008 reauthorization. Senator Enzi made this point clear: “As important as it is to increase the number of first-­ time college-going students, the fact is that nontraditional students are the students of the future” in part because the twenty-first century economy requires continual education and, in some cases, retraining (31 July 2008, p. S 7848). This was the foundation of the argument to make Pell money available year round, not just during the traditional academic year. Non-­ traditional students were not always able to attend full time, making summer school or alternate semester programs vital to their success. Thus, this “student of the future” needed the financial support for any term, full or

192 

A. L. PALMADESSA

part time, to have an equitable opportunity to attend college at any level (Congressional Record, Senate, 31 July 2008). Part of the provision of COAA 2007 was the requirement of institutions to disclose all tuition costs and explanation for any increase in the total fees for attendance. This was required as a means to help the consumer-­ student best prepare for college costs but also help lower-­ income students understand what type of financial responsibility they would assume based on the cost of a specific institution. Ultimately, this was an issue of equity as the consumer was to be informed and exceptionally costly institutions were accountable for their costs, at least in the form of information (Congressional Record, 7 February 2008). In the discourse of equity, the neoliberal turn was evident as students were described as consumers. This is problematic because consumers are those with purchase power; the HEA was to assist those who lacked purchase power, particularly when the object to be purchased is at the markedly high price of college tuition. The metaphors, images, and arguments frame equity as important, but for consumers, not individuals seeking to better their life experiences. Marketing student aid for equity as a means to support national goals and international economic growth was the best means to garner support for the HEA in 2008. Access Access for qualified students remained a theme in 2008. When the “doors of higher education” metaphor is employed, the motivation for access is based upon academic ability. Representative Miller expressed this sentiment in the House when he emphasized that the reauthorization was to provide “students and families with additional reforms needed to truly ensure that the doors of college remain open to all qualified students” (11 March 2008, p. H 1499). Representative Miller previously used this metaphor in February, arguing that qualified students were not immune to the difficulties of the processes required to obtain aid and actually attend college and in fact needed help at each level of the quest for higher learning—application to attendance to successful completion of programs (Congressional Record, House, 7 February 2008). Thus, as others argued, qualified students were in need of support once in their institutions. In supporting the legislation, Senator Mikulski added to the debate:

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

193

It is not a laundry list of programs. It is about helping those young people who want to get into school, making sure we deal with some of the critical shortages facing our country, and at the same time having empowerment opportunity where we help important historic institutions, such as our Historically Black Colleges. (31 July 2008, p. S 7848)

Helping institutions helps students succeed, not only in accessing college but in completing programs and supporting future access programs. Otherwise, access to higher education and federal funding maintains no explicit value. “Worthy students” (Rep. Keller, 7 February 2008, p. H 644) were “smart and sharp” and needed to be encouraged to continue and complete their education (Rep. Smith, 7 February 2008, p. H 645). If not, the nation loses vital contributors to the workforce and the economy. This, ultimately, is the crux of the accessibility argument in 2008. Representative Tierney summarizes this position on 7 February 2008 on the floor of the House in a very intense debate: This is all about access and affordability. It is foremost in people’s minds, whether you speak to people in the business community, you talk to academics or elected representatives or families or students, they are talking about opportunity for individuals, talking about the national economic security of this country and our need for innovators, for leaders, for people in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields, and in business we are talking about global competitiveness, the need to have people with more than just a high school degree in order to lead our businesses and fill our jobs. (p. H 647)

Neoliberalism is clearly undergirding the discursive strategies arguing for increased access to higher education. The ideological codes of economy over individual and market growth over social stability is clearly demonstrated in these excerpts. The only reason anyone should be afforded the opportunity to seek higher education is to support the nation’s economic status and competitive edge on a global scale. However important the COAA 2007 was to increasing access, members of Congress did not shy away from placing blame on institutions for creating barriers. The most significant barrier was of course cost, but this cost was positioned as “skyrocketing” without explanation, “exorbitant,” and it was the responsibility of postsecondary institutions to explain themselves (Congressional Record, House, 7 February 2008). The 2007

194 

A. L. PALMADESSA

College Cost Reduction Act helped this concern, but it was not until the reauthorization that colleges and universities were required to disclose costs and rationale for any increase. This included costs outside of tuition, such as textbooks, lab fees, and other classroom needs for students (Congressional Record, Senate, 31 January 2008). Access for students of lower-income and disadvantaged backgrounds was employed as a means to advocate for the reauthorization. “This year we have continued our commitment to the poor and to the middle class by expanding college access” (Rep. Shea-Porter, 7 February 2008, p. H 649). In 2008, this was positioned as a means to acquire a more prosperous or advantaged position: this “legislation provides greater access to colleges and universities making higher education affordable for all Americans, not just the wealthy. A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and economic mobility in this country” (Rep. Jackson-Lee, 7 February 2008, p. H 637). Specifically, provisions were included for minority-serving institutions—HBCUs, HSIs, and tribal colleges. Access was further expanded to include means to assist students with disabilities who seek a college education. In the reauthorization, COAA 2007 “expand[s] college opportunities for disabled citizens by expanding eligibility for Pell Grant scholarships and establishing a national center to provide support services” (Rep. Matsui, 31 July 2008, p. H 7643). This was, as Representative Miller argued, the only way “to ensure equal opportunities and a fair learning environment for students with disabilities” (7 February 2008, p. H 642). Providing a means to better support more students who desire higher education was the goal of the 2008 supporters, as it was stated that “we are committed to making the cost of college more affordable and accessible” (Rep. Castor, 7 February 2008, p. H 630). Plainly stated, this goal has not deviated from the original HEA mission. Yet, in 2008, the transition from access for social equality to access for wealth of the nation became clear: “access and affordability for more for students to be able to go and develop the skills they need to be competitive in the global marketplace” (Rep. Kind 7 February 2008, p. H 649). This perspective permanently solidified the dichotomy of equity as national economic growth, the foundation of the neoliberal knowledge-based economy.

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

195

The Nation With a recession on the horizon and constraints in the domestic and global economies, the role of higher education in supporting the nation was of utmost concern and a dominant theme in the 2008 debates. America’s future, after all, depends on college graduates (Rep. Jackson-Lee, 7 February 2008, p. H 627). The future hinging on college access and success was validated by the recognition of superiority of US colleges and universities among other nations. Representative Sutton noted, “Our Nation is blessed to have the finest system of higher education in the world” which is imperative to national success as “[i]nvesting in our students not only improves their future, but it helps our economy and strengthens our competitive edge in the global marketplace” (7 February 2008, p. H 629). This international status among nations for the US to be superior was a requirement, not a recommendation; “In today’s global economy, it’s essential that America’s workforce remain competitive at an international level” (Rep. Sutton, 7 February 2008, p. H 633). The only way to do this is to “have the best educated people as we proceed to make sure that we can compete in that global economy” (Rep. Dreier, 7 February 2008, p. H 634). Although the US has an incredible higher education system, and the federal government is willing to and working towards supporting students, the US was falling behind in degree attainment, ranking fourth among industrial nations. This was not acceptable and had to be addressed to meet the demands of the twenty-first century. The focus on degree attainment via access and affordability not only supports the economy, but it was also argued, by Representative Miller, that national security was also at stake, and higher education, degree attainment, better jobs, and higher pay were synonymous with both economic and national security (7 February 2008, p. H 642). Congressional representatives referred to the nation’s struggles and also the nation’s status in the global economy in relationship to the value of higher education in the knowledge-based economy (Jessop, 2008). Representative Bishop asked, “How can we have a competitive workforce, how can we have a competitive Nation, if we don’t even provide our young men and women with access to college?” (6 February 2008, p. H 602). Considering the need for these workers to support the global economy and the US’s status among nations, “we’re sort of seeing a massive slowdown in this economy…this is the very worst time to be cutting back our commitment to higher education programs,” as business leaders are

196 

A. L. PALMADESSA

desperate for workers that are properly trained and educated (Rep. Murphy, 6 February 2008, p. H 606). Senator Enzi reinforced this position, “it is necessary for America’s students to be able to access the tools and assistance they will need to complete their college education and acquire the knowledge and skills that will enable them to be successful in the 21st century economy” (31 July 2008, p. S 7848). The investment in educating the workforce would create significant returns: Our Nation’s continued prosperity is dependent upon the investment that we make in securing the futures of our children and grandchildren. This legislation will help to maintain America’s strong global standing by providing our students the tools and resources they need to be competitive in a transnational economy. (Rep. Clyburn, 7 February 2008, p. H 644)

The future of the nation lies in the educational opportunities of the American youth (Rep. McCarthy, 7 February 2008, p. H 647), and this future is determined by the economy. Economic recovery was the only means to maintain the position of the US as the most powerful nation in a neoliberal state. Democracy Democratic ideals of equality, service, involvement, rights/freedoms, or norms and values were not dominant themes in the 2008 debates. In fact, there were minimal references to democratic idealism in the debates regarding higher education broadly or specific to the reauthorization in the Congressional Record. Instead, democracy is encapsulated as an assumedly understood concept of the public good, best defined by the American dream. That good, and the dream each American hopes to achieve, is an economic status defined clearly by the members of Congress who seek to support the HEA reauthorization. Representative McKeon noted the importance of higher education as a public good as a “college degree is the ticket to the middle class” as postsecondary education prepares individuals for “good jobs, and it allows them to pursue new skills in the changing economy. Higher education,” he continued, “has important societal benefits. College-educated citizens are healthier, more civically minded, have lower unemployment rates, and use fewer government benefits. An educated citizenry is also vital to maintaining our competitive edge in a changing world” (7 February 2008, p. H 642).

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

197

Democracy, as an artifact to be preserved, is employed frequently by Congressional leaders. Connecting the value of higher education to the past and individual economic status, Representative Sutton added: the benefits of higher education are undeniable for students, their families, and for our country and society at large. As a nation, we recognize this, having always been a global standard bearer and our high regard for the merits of higher education. Reaching the American Dream of leading a secure and fulfilling life is a goal that we can make achievable when we open the doors of college to all. (7 February 2008, p. H 633)

Here, the past achievements of the nation are attributed to higher education and the ability of higher education to help individuals achieve the American dream. In addition, the metaphor of the doors of higher education being open over the nation’s history has led to this achievement. The standards for higher education as a means to promote or preserve democracy are embedded in previous legislation in times of great crisis, each of which are referenced in the debates. The Morrill Acts, the GI Bill, NDEA 1958, and the original HEA 1965 were all used as points of comparison for the 2008 iteration. The Morrill Acts were noted as the starting point for the involvement of the federal government in higher education and as a means to open doors of postsecondary education to more people. The GI Bill was often lauded for the direct financial support veterans received through the 1944 law. Given the enormity of the GI Bill in funding and reach, it is the standard to which all federal aid programs are held to, and with good reason. As noted in several debates, the GI Bill was the largest investment in student access to date, even out-paced the 1965 legislation, until 2007 when Congress passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, a precursor of and foundation for the College Opportunity and Affordability Act (Rep. Miller, 7 February 2008, p. H 641). The GI Bill was successful in sending veterans and their families to college after World War II, setting the precedent of higher education as a right for the American people, and a standard for democratic nations (Palmadessa, 2017). The National Defense Education Act (NDEA 1958) was the direct result of the failure of the US in the Space Race when the USSR launched the first successful satellite into space, Sputnik. This race against an enemy in rank, and the resulting legislation, was positioned as a correlation to the position of the US in 2008. Senator Enzi obliged:

198 

A. L. PALMADESSA

This is an important step, and it will have an impact on the lives of students of all ages for years to come. It is much like the launch just over 50 years ago of the Sputnik satellite that sparked a great debate about out place in the space race. The success of Sputnik sent shockwaves through the Nation. Russia was getting the better of us technologically, and we couldn’t allow that to happen. It sparked a change in our education policies, and it sparked America to do what it does best, which is to rise to the challenge with innovation and a marked determination to be second to none. No longer could we rest on our past triumphs as a nation. We met the challenge of Sputnik through the National Defense Education Act. Today, we are again challenged but in a different way. Now, instead of a race for space, it is a race for knowledge and skills that confronts us. It is a race we dare not lose, for the stakes this time are even higher. What is at risk is our strong economy. The solution to this difficult problem is to make a college education more accessible, more affordable, and more accountable for more Americans. (31 July 2008, p. S 7848)

In this excerpt, Senator Enzi minimizes the impact of the Cold War and, in doing so, positions the knowledge-based economy as a battlefield. In that battlefield, minds are the defense, and to win the war, more Americans must attend college. As in 1958, the US cannot be the world leader, a beacon of democratic ideals, if it is not the undisputed winner of the contest in that historical moment. President Johnson’s Great Society continued the perception of access to higher education as evidence of democratic values. In supporting the increase in Pell Grant funds in particular, Representative Matsui reminded her colleagues of the necessity of need-based funds for the most disadvantaged as the core of the Johnson agenda (Congressional Record, 31 July 2008, House, p. H 7643). As noted in the equity and access analyses, the concept of democracy as equal opportunity was still prevalent, albeit couched in economic terms, in the 2008 debates. At this point in history, neoliberalism was the norm, and having financial stability or security was the epitome of democratic idealism (Palmadessa, 2017). Pro-Education The successes of legislation in 2007 and 2008 were positioned as supporting arguments for the reauthorization in the form of COAA 2007 in the 2008 debates. In 2007, the College Cost Reduction Act was passed that gave Congress a window into college tuition value, the rationale for

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

199

increasing fees at a much higher rate than inflation, and held institutions accountable for the decision to raise tuition. Also in 2007, the budget reconciliation took into account federal student loans as an important aspect of aid for many students, an aid that needed to be protected and also kept at a manageable interest rate to help students avoid exorbitant debt. This was solidified in the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, which became necessary as the banking crisis unfolded that year. This was also a point addressed in the COAA 2007, but having the added protection of a separate bill only reinforced the government’s ability to help the students with the most need. There were other bills that supported the overall access agenda and higher education more broadly— such as a post-9/11 GI Bill, campus safety legislation, and k-12 specific acts that indirectly influence the post-secondary sector—that were mentioned or outlined in the pro-education discourse but were not included in the HEA package at the time. The pro-education stance of advocates was expressed not only in the reference to and gratitude for the above federal actions but also in reference to personal experience, the need to improve teacher preparation to support k-12 education, and in the value of higher education for global economic status. Representative Sutton claimed, “Investing in our students not only improves their future, but it helps our economy and strengthens our competitive edge in the global marketplace” (7 February 2008, p. H 629). But this is all for naught if potential college students are not receiving an adequate k-12 education. This makes teacher preparation an important aspect of the reauthorization because there was a national shortage of teachers in 2007, and there was exceptional need for high-­ quality, well-trained teachers in the highest-need k-12 schools. The HEA presented an opportunity to promote pipelines to the highest-need areas through community partnerships and incentivize future teachers (Sen. Mikulski, 31 July 2008, p. S 7847). Some Congressional members had experience in education as teachers or administrators, and several shared their experiences in the classroom. This allowed for a privileged yet biased perspective for these policymakers, for better or worse. Having this experience provided significant insight they could share with colleagues with different experiences with and in education. Several members told anecdotes from their college days that may not have been possible without federal financial aid programs. Although these stories are sparse, the narratives added a human value to the matter at hand, demonstrating the direct impact of education

200 

A. L. PALMADESSA

legislation on national leaders who represent the general population. It was important to offer the same opportunities to future generations, and given the economic challenges of 2008, the need was imminent. Although recession was on the horizon, in an effort to make sure that a reauthorization was achieved in 2008, after failure in 2006, Congress extended the existing programs on four occasions to buy time to reach a compromise. Many members were frustrated by the 2006 failure, and some of the opposition expressed in the debates centered on the reasons that the previous Congress could not come to an agreement. It was not over items in the package, but the procedural rules determined in committee. The Opposition Opposition to the COAA 2007 was related to three points: cost, procedural rules, and the role of the states versus the federal government. There were no viewpoints that claimed populations or disadvantaged groups were not worthy of assistance; there was no debate that separated genders or ethnicities to the detriment of one group. Instead, the representatives who took issue with the reauthorization package were most concerned with increased costs to the government and/or taxpayers, or, from the other side of the fence, the inadequacy of the increase. Interest rates, loan provisions, and bureaucratic processes were all cost-related points of debate for critics. The rules were a point of contention due in part to the failure of Congress to put forward a reauthorization of HEA in 2006. Most prominent in the opposing arguments was the position that the rules precluded the discussion of amendments and time for consideration of additional examination, debate, and negotiation. This was positioned as a means to stifle the Republican Party in particular, by the Democratically controlled Congress. Representative McKeon was the most outspoken leader of the opposition to the rules. He argued that open debate had been stifled by the Democrats not just during the HEA reauthorization process, but for the entire legislative cycle. In doing so, McKeon argued, many important aspects of the HEA were not adequately discussed or addressed, weakening the impact of the bill. This was not a mistake, Representative McKeon argued because “Republican amendments…were stifled by a heavy-handed majority” (7 February 2008, p. H 630). This argument was validated by Representative Souder, who claimed that of the 27 amendments discussed

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

201

on the floor, only four were written by Republicans (Congressional Record, 7 February 2008). Representative Dreier brought the argument full circle when he stated: “the process around which we are considering this very important legislation is just plain wrong…the last time that this was successfully authorized…was 10 years ago. It was done under a modified rule…there was an attempt two Congresses ago [2006] to do it, and when we had a structured rule, it failed. Why don’t those colleagues of ours who are in charge learn from the mistake of having not done this under an open amendment process?” (7 February 2008, p. H 634). The opposition of the rules was led by Republican leaders, who also feared the federal government was overstepping its role in higher education, another opposing perspective not concerned with the content of the bill. The role of the federal government in higher education was an issue of debate in 1965 and was questioned at each reauthorization. Given the relegation of education to the states by the US Constitution in the 10th Amendment (Rep. Bishop, 7 February 2008, p. H 633), and the inclusion of state universities in most state constitutions, it is an understandable debate. This opposition was positioned one of two ways—as a burden on states and institutions imparted by the federal government, or the rights and duties of states to fund higher education. Senator Alexander argued that the more the federal government became involved the more regulations were created, “undermining the quality of higher education” (31 July 2008, p. S 7850). To illustrate his point that the quality was hindered by the amount of accountability and documentation required to keep up with the regulations, Senator Alexander printed the relevant federal rules for higher education and had them boxed and brought to the floor. The boxes were reported to stack higher than the Senator, an indication of the bureaucratic oversight created by the federal government. Adding to his displeasure with federal regulations, Senator Alexander later argued that states should have more autonomy in allocating the aid money to institutions and their students. Senator Mikulski responded to Senator Alexander’s criticism by reminding him of the amendment passed by the Senate to the COAA 2007 that specifically allocated “$66 million to States to use on a variety of very important college access activities, particularly need-based grants and college prep programs” (31 July 2008, p. S 7855). Even with opposition to the rules and questions regarding the role of the federal government after four extensions, the COAA 2007 was passed in 2008 officially reauthorizing the Higher Education Act through 2012. Timing was of the essence given the economic crisis that began in 2008,

202 

A. L. PALMADESSA

an election year, and just before the complete downturn into an official recession in 2009. With the inauguration of a new president with ambitions to increase support to higher education, the Obama administration was uniquely positioned to wield higher education as a tool to support the nation in times of trouble, as so many presidents before him successfully accomplished.

President Obama: Economic Crisis and Higher Education Funding The economic crisis of 2008 benefited higher education as the Obama administration funneled significant federal monies into postsecondary education through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Gilbert & Heller, 2013). This Recovery Act (P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $98 billion in federal grant funds to education, most of which set to expire in 2011 (Department of Education, 2019). Also in 2009, President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to higher education with the American Graduation Initiative (AGI). This would be followed in 2015 with the proposed America’s College Promise Act (ACP), a means to support the AGI and keep higher education access at the forefront of his agenda. Each of these initiatives are discussed in detail below. These agenda items are significant not only to the Obama administration and the commitment to making higher education more accessible but also in an effort to keep the federal government’s hand in institutional planning and policies, as these policies, if passed, would have a profound impact on tuition costs, access, and retention, as well as program-level needs given the focus on the first two years of postsecondary education (Palmadessa, 2017). The federal government’s relationship with higher education was more explicit in 2010 when Obama’s healthcare omnibus bill negated the role of banks in direct lending to students. This not only reinforced the Clinton administration’s shift to federal capital for student loans but also elevated the role of the federal government in student aid by requiring federal intervention in all Higher Education Act student aid policies (Gilbert & Heller, 2013).

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

203

The American Graduation Initiative and America’s College Promise President Obama announced the American Graduation Initiative (AGI) at Macomb Community College in Michigan on 14 July 2009 (Obama, 2009). The location of this announcement was strategic as the President considered community colleges to be a vital part of this initiative that proposed federal financial support to community colleges and individuals in an effort to reach a national goal of 5 million graduates by 2020, a number that supported repositioning the US as the leader in college degree attainment (White House, 2012). This was of course a plan that would increase access and add federal funds to institutions, but it was also a means to support the US economy that was still reeling from the 2008 crisis (Office of the Press Secretary, 2009). Obama (2009) declared that this initiative furthered the causes set forth by President Lincoln and the Morrill Acts, President Roosevelt and the GI Bill, and President Truman’s Commission on Higher Education, each of which increased access and supported the efforts of the community college. Access and affordability were key aspects of the AGI and the intentional focus on community colleges. In addition, given the connection to economic growth, the community college was the most obvious choice for the President to directly support, as he noted the focus on workforce development. After the 2008 financial collapse, jobs were lost, and people were looking to higher education as a means to increase their employability by retooling their skills or learning a new trade for the technologically advancing economy. The President proclaimed, “Community colleges are an essential part of our recovery in the present and our prosperity in the future. This place can make the future better, not just for these individuals but for America” (Obama, 2009, para. 8). To make sure that individuals and the nation could benefit as much as possible from this asset, the two-­ year college, President Obama called upon Second Lady Dr. Jill Biden to lead a summit on community colleges to work with community college leaders to determine the best ways for the federal government to support their programs, facilities, and students so that the institutions could meet the call to serve the AGI (Obama, 2009). Although the goals set forth in AGI were noble and timely, the economic constraints persisting in 2009 from the 2008 collapse prevented this initiative from moving forward into policy.

204 

A. L. PALMADESSA

However, in January of 2015, as a means to formulate the goals of AGI into policy, President Obama announced the America’s College Promise Act. At this point, since 2014, the nation was recovering from the 2008 downturn, and employment rates were soaring (White House, 2015). Obama (2015) declared that “America is coming back,” and he wanted to ensure that every American who sought higher education could afford that opportunity as it was the “ticket to the middle class” that is the “engine that powers America’s prosperity” (paras. 7, 13–15). ACP offered tuition waivers for deserving students; the use of tuition waivers was hotly contested as some critics argued it was a handout. In response, grade point average criterion was attached to the waivers, as well as persistence to degree completion. This would prevent abuse of funds and would encourage students to complete their program of study. For critics who suggested this was no guarantee for socio-economic mobility, Obama answered, “Here in America we don’t guarantee equal outcomes…But we do expect that everybody gets an equal shot” (2015, para. 17). This was, in effect, a promise to able and willing students who lacked funds to attend a program of their choosing, for at least two years, to help them reach their goals. In keeping with the goals of AGI, the impetus of this policy’s success was on the community college, as Obama once again reinforced the importance of the two-year institution in bolstering the workforce and meeting the demands of the knowledge-based, technologically advancing marketplace (Palmadessa, 2017). America’s College Promise Act of 2015 (H.R. 2962, 2015) was introduced in the House and Senate on 8 July 2015. Although ACP had vocal, strong support, it was not enough to see the policy become law. This, in part, was likely due to the contentious presidential race that was underway, in which there was strict division on the purpose, role, function, and value of higher education in the United States (Palmadessa, 2017). Although ACP and thus AGI never came to fruition, each agenda item kept higher education access at the forefront of debate, where it remained throughout the next two presidential terms, albeit with completely different agenda perspectives and intentions.

Higher Education Access Challenges After Obama The Higher Education Act authorizations expired in 2013 and were put on hold for revision, although funds for the current programs were extended. The HEA has come up for reauthorization multiple times since

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

205

the failed attempt in 2013, with no progress towards a new rewrite of the legislation. This is in part due to partisan issues but also to the changing needs of college students and disagreement as to how to best support college access for the most deserving students. One of the biggest issues facing policymakers interested in college equity and access is the cost, from the end of Obama’s term to the present day. College costs are not going to decrease and the financial aid policies are not going to be able to catch up to the need. Thus, where should the debt be allocated, and should policymakers consider the risk of high debt for students and their families, especially when this is a deterrent for low-­ income and most at-risk students? (Glater, 2016). How the federal government handles grants versus loans, and whether tax incentives help all students who desire education is not a new debate; it is an old debate that kept Congressional floor debates lively in 1965 and continues well into the twenty-first century. However contentious, the Higher Education Act and each reauthorization do improve access to higher education for more individuals in the United States. President Johnson’s proclamation of victory in the quest for equity in higher education in 1965 was not without merit. There were more students than at any point in American history who had the ability to attend college after the HEA was passed. However incredibly important that legislation was in the history of higher education policy and access, the realization is still far from complete. It is, as Glater (2016) notes, an aspiration, not an accomplishment. Moving into the third decade of the twenty-first century, this aspirational goal to make college accessible to all who desire it is still a work in progress. Even as the HEA was brought before Congress multiple times since the failed attempt in 2013, it is continually stalled and extended instead of rewritten and reauthorized for increased access and equity in higher education. The next set of federal administrations, the Trump administration followed by the Biden administration, will have their own set of challenges and perspectives regarding higher education. As discussed in the final chapter, President Trump was not terribly concerned about supporting higher education and did not support a focus on access or equity for individuals who desire postsecondary degrees. President Biden, alternatively, is an ardent supporter of higher education access and has been since joining the federal government as a Senator in 1973. However supportive President Biden is of higher education, and his policy record and agenda continue to promote the value of higher education, the current

206 

A. L. PALMADESSA

socio-political context is not favorable for a reauthorization that will strengthen the mission of equity and access of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

References Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining ‘Equity’ of American higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321–341. Baptiste, H. P., Orvosh-Kamenski, H., & Kamenski, C. J. (2005). American presidents and their attitudes, beliefs, and actions surrounding multiculturalism and education: Seventh Installment. Analysis of Power and Leadership in the Presidency. Multicultural Education, 12(4), 25–36. Bush, G. W. (2004, April 5). Remarks on Job Training and the National Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina. Retrieved from The American Presidency Project website at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=72594 Congressional Record. (2008, 11 March). https://www.congress.gov/bound-­ congressional-­record/2008/03/11 Congressional Record. (2008, 31 January). https://www.congress.gov/bound-­ congressional-­record/2008/01/31 Congressional Record. (2008, 31 July). https://www.congress.gov/bound-­ congressional-­record/2008/07/31 Congressional Record. (2008, 6 February). https://www.congress.gov/bound-­ congressional-­record/2008/02/06 Congressional Record. (2008, 7 February). https://www.congress.gov/bound-­ congressional-­record/2008/02/07 Congressional Record. (2008, 7 March). https://www.congress.gov/bound-­ congressional-­record/2008/03/07 Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) (2005). Congressional actions related to Hurricane Katrina. Publication number 27, 24 October 2005, available online: https://www.chea.org/congressional-actions-related hurricane-katrina Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) (2006). Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Publication number 31, 7 September 2006, available online: https://www.chea.org/reauthorization-highereducation-act Department of Education. (2019). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/recoveryact.html Doyle, W. R. (2010). U.S. senator’s ideal points for higher education: Documenting partisanship, 1965–2004. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(5), 619–644. Doyle, W. R. (2010b). Public opinion, partisan identification, and higher education policy. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(4), 369–401. Eaton, J. S., Fryshman, B., Hope, S., Scanlon, E., & Crow, S. (2005). Disclosure and damage. Change, 37(3), 42–50.

7  HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND AN UNCERTAIN… 

207

Gilbert, C. K., & Heller, D. E. (2013). Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman Commission and federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2011. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(3), 417–443. Glater, J. D. (2016). Debt, merit, and equity in higher education access. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79(3), 89–113. Green, T.  C. (2005). Financial aid, access, and America’s social contract with higher education. College and University, 80(3), 9–14. Jessop, B. (2008). Introduction. In B. Jessop, N. Fairclough, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Education and the knowledgebased economy in Europe (pp. 1–9). Sense Publishers. LaRock, J.  D., & Rodriguez-Farrar, H. (2005). Interview: U.S.  Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Harvard Educational Review, 75(4), 364–383. Lingenfelter, P. E., & Lenth, C. S. (2005). What should REAUTHORIZATION be about? Change, 37(3), 12–20. Lovett, C.  M. (2005). Higher education reauthorization the debate continues. Change, 37(3), 6–7. Lowry, R. C. (2009). Reauthorization of the federal Higher Education Act and accountability for student learning: The dog that didn’t bark. Publius, 39(3), 506–526. Obama, B. (2009, July 14). Remarks at Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan. Retrieved from The American Presidency Project website at http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid= Obama, B. (2015, January 9). Remarks at Pellissippi State Community College in Knoxville, Tennessee. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=109217&;st=higher+ed ucation&st1= Office of the Press Secretary. (2009). Excerpts of the president’s remarks in Warren, Michigan and fact sheet on the American Graduation Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/excerpts presidents-remarks-warren-michigan-and-fact-sheetamerican-graduation-init Palmadessa, A. L. (2014). Higher education and the discursive construction of American national identity, 1946–2013 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro. Palmadessa, A. L. (2017). American National Identity, Policy Paradigms, and Higher Education: A History of the Relationship between Higher Education and the United States, 1862–2016. Palgrave Macmillan. Palmadessa, A. L. (2023). American Superiority, Democratic Idealism, and the Truman Commission: A Critical Discourse Historical Analysis of Higher Education for American Democracy. Peabody Journal of Education, 98(3), 284–300. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10. 1080/0161956X.2023.2216080

208 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Reindl, T. (2005). Who pays? Who benefits? New voices in higher education’s enduring argument. College and University, 81(1), 29–30. Swenson, C., Warrne, D., & Boggs, G. (2005). Point/Counterpoint. Change, 37(3), 20–28. White House. (2012). The economics of higher education: A report prepared by the Department of the Treasury with the Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury. White House. (2015). FACT SHEET—White House unveils America’s College Promise pro posal: Tuition-free community college for responsible students. Washington, DC: Office of the Press Secretary.

CHAPTER 8

The Future of the Relationship Between the Federal Government and Higher Education

Obama’s efforts to increase degree attainment, albeit as a means to stimulate the economy and produce a workforce to meet the demands of the knowledge-based economy, were halted with the election of Donald Trump in 2016. America’s College Promise was tabled and left to wither with the social policies set forth by the Obama administration. The notion of free community college, or two years of free college education more broadly, was a key campaign strategy for Democratic hopefuls, particularly former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Senator Elizabeth Warren. Each of these candidates vying for the democratic party nomination considered equitable access to higher education an imperative for national growth and individuals’ success. Hillary Clinton won the nomination but was unfortunately defeated by Donald Trump to become the 45th president of the United States, taking the oath of office in January 2017.

The Trump Administration and Higher Education President Trump was the first president in American history not to address higher education as an agenda item or an institution worth presidential attention in his inaugural address (Palmadessa, 2017a, 2023d). Instead, President Trump attacked higher education by criticizing the curriculum and the professorate as out-of-control liberals and repeatedly celebrated © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. L. Palmadessa, Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43706-9_8

209

210 

A. L. PALMADESSA

those who were uneducated. During Trump’s one-term presidency, higher education as a benefit for citizens, the nation, or democracy was not part of his rhetoric. Instead, his attention was focused on workforce development for economic growth. Although devoting attention to workforce development is an important aspect of stability and is supportive of one aspect of higher education, the rhetoric the president used, the stated purpose of this focus, and the contrasts between vocational education and non-vocational postsecondary education presented a clear message for higher education more broadly (Trump, 2017; Trump, 2020a, 2020b).

From Trump to Biden: Recovery and New Challenges for Higher Education Trump’s lack of attention to equitable access to higher education, disinterest in supporting public colleges and universities in particular, and his continued proclamations favoring “the uneducated” did not create a policy environment that could effectively push against the president’s agenda, whether Congressional members wanted to or not. As a result, outside of Covid-related funding initiatives, higher education was not a priority for the Trump administration, leaving an opening for the next President to reignite national interest in supporting higher education. The transition of power from Trump to Biden was an embarrassing moment for the US.  In what is supposed to be a peaceful transfer of authority, and an honorable ceremonial transition, the Trump White House created a hostile environment, and the first family disregarded the traditions and respect of the inaugural process. In the final days of Trump’s presidency, on 6 January 2021, the president rallied his supporters in Washington, D.C., claiming that Biden and liberals in Congress stole the election from him. He encouraged his supporters to march to Capitol Hill to protest the affirmation of the election results. The crowd acquiesced and stormed the Capitol building, forcing members of Congress to be removed by security and hidden for their safety. The crowd defaced the federal building, destroyed offices, stole computers and items from the Capitol, and overtook the chamber. During this event, several people were killed, making this a tragic moment in US history. In the days after 6 January 2021, Congress, Washington, and the nation were reeling with confusion and discomfort from the abhorrent actions at the Capitol. Questions remained as to whether the president caused the

8  THE FUTURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL… 

211

event, if the president neglected his duty to protect the people, if the event was an insurrection punishable as a seditious act, and what and how to handle the answers to those questions in the very short period of time from the event to inauguration day, only two weeks away, on January 20, 2021. There were also concerns for the safety of government officials in Washington, and additional security measures were put in place for the inauguration, a day that was to represent the peaceful transition from one elected executive to the next. President Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021 was not a traditional event as a result of the two previous weeks’ events and the actions of the departing president. Typically, the outgoing president and first lady greet the incoming and offer an introduction to the White House staff and residence, as well as share experiences and words of advice, often with a letter left in the Oval Office. Instead of following tradition, the Trump family left the White House via Marine One and opted not to attend the swearing in of President Biden and his administration. This was not a subtle act as the event was televised—the event being the exit of the Trumps as well as the inaugural ceremonies—and Trump expressed his position in his exit speech at Joint Base Andrews before boarding Air Force One for the last time. Trump addressed the crowd, “I will always fight for you. I will be watching. I will be listening…We will be back in some form” (Trump, 2021). President Biden has a secret weapon to support and bolster awareness for the value of higher education: First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden, community college professor. Dr. Biden was instrumental in bringing attention to the value and benefits of college education, particularly what the community college can offer the nation and individuals. President Biden considered higher education an important part of his campaign, addressed the needs and benefits of higher education access in his inaugural address, and has offered policy options for consideration. At this time, in mid-2023, the Higher Education Act is due for reauthorization and higher education is under attack by policymakers, government leaders, and conservative pundits.

The Biden Administration and Higher Education The Biden administration advocated for higher education in 2021, shortly after taking office, as a means to help heal the nation. In his inaugural address, Biden spoke of the need to reunite and heal a nation that was torn

212 

A. L. PALMADESSA

by bitter disputes and was still in the throes of the Covid-19 pandemic. One way to unite and heal is through education, knowledge, skills, and jobs. The US economy had a brief recession during the pandemic due to the shuttering of businesses and disruptions in supply; as the economy recovered, many industries and businesses were not able to recover due to the changes in the workforce during the pandemic. This impacted how postsecondary education could support Biden’s vision of recovery. In 2021, President Biden introduced the Build Back Better Act (BBBA) as a comprehensive plan to address some of the most important issues before the American people during the pandemic. The BBBA outlined a plan to reduce costs for childcare, healthcare, and housing; security for workers, tax benefits for lower-income workers; environmental and immigration policy reforms; and access to higher education. Benefits for specific institutions included funds to modernize and expand facilities at HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs most specifically; and for individual students, Biden included an increase of $550 in Pell Grant funds for students who needed financial support that attended, or will attend, non-profit public or private colleges. The proposal also expanded support and higher education access for DREAMers and offered support for HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs to supplement financial aid packages for the students most in need. And, there were specific provisions for the community college to “train hundreds of thousands of students, create sector-based training opportunity with indemand training for at least hundreds of thousands of workers, and invest in proven approaches like Registered Apprenticeships and programs to support underserved communities” (whitehouse.gov, 2021). The framework created by the BBBA 2021 supported First Lady Dr. Jill Biden’s work advocating for community colleges that she began as Second Lady a decade earlier. Speaking at the Community College National Leadership Summit in 2021, Dr. Biden noted not only the importance of the community college in the postsecondary sector but also the fact that after the Great Recession of 2008–2009, the two-year college emerged from being “America’s best kept secret” to an institution vital to recovery in 2021: “‘The secret’s out now…It’s time to pick up the bullhorn and take the lead…As we rebuild our economy, we need community colleges more than ever…We [the Biden administration] understand the power of your schools. We know supporting your students and your institutions is urgent’” (Toner, 2021, paras. 2–3). To make this a reality, the Biden administration called for free access to community colleges as the most effective means to equity in higher education.

8  THE FUTURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL… 

213

The concept of free community college or free two years of postsecondary education was not novel to the Biden administration. By the election of President Biden, there were state and local level promise programs— programs that provided tuition-free options as a means to increase access to higher education and counter the barrier of cost for postsecondary education (Perna et al., 2019). The revival of promise programs at any level was a nod to Obama’s argument that higher education should be a right, not a privilege (Juban et al., 2021; Palmadessa, 2017b), and Dr. Biden was prepared to tirelessly advocate for this right (Palmadessa, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c). Although this provision was pulled from the BBBA 2021, the First Lady continues to advocate not only for the community college and its significance in higher education but also for the benefits of postsecondary education for the economy and for individuals in the US. This advocacy is more complicated in this historical moment as political turmoil and social upheaval has higher education in the cross-hairs of public opinion.

Criticism and Misunderstanding: Higher Education in Political Turmoil The socio-political battlefield of 2023, as the nation is still recovering from the pandemic and the division (or unity) caused by the Trump administration (Palmadessa, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c), has pulled higher education into the fray. What and how educators should teach and what perspectives are valued are central to the challenges to education at all levels, creating more problems for higher education as social institutions charged with disseminating knowledge for the public good, supporting democratic idealism, and providing a means to create a more equitable society. Equity in American society is far from attained in the third decade of 2023 as there is a resurgence of racial violence and an exceptionally reactionary response to any effort to combat institutionalized racism. Racial injustice in the US has a renewed focus as the result of racial tensions and violence which prompted a social movement, Black Lives Matter (BLM). The BLM Movement was initiated after the killing of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of his shooter in 2013 and gained significant momentum after the police shooting of Michael Brown in 2014. In each of these cases, the victim was an unarmed black male, and the shooter was not black and was not held responsible for the death of these men. These are just two

214 

A. L. PALMADESSA

examples of a string of instances of violence that prompted the BLM and interrogation of systemic racism in the US. With an increased focus on racial issues in the US, scholars responded by critically analyzing socio-political and legal policies and practices as a means to determine how embedded racism is in the democratic republic. Through the scholarly lens of critical race theory (CRT), scholars are able to interrogate systems of oppression otherwise obfuscated by discourses and practices. CRT is an analytical framework first used in the 1970s at Harvard Law School. Since the introduction of this theoretical paradigm for scholarly use was introduced, it has made an appearance on rare occasions in the socio-political sphere, as it was referenced by political leaders in the 1990s, namely then Harvard student Barack Obama and later President Clinton, due to his appointment of a controversial legal scholar synonymous with CRT work. Otherwise, CRT remained in the auspices of the academy as a tool for scholars to uncover embedded challenges to racial justice in the US. This framework for analysis crossed the intellectual sphere to the public sphere in 2019 with the publication of the 1619 Project, most notably. Works such as those in the 1619 collection, which aim to offer perspectives not of the victors of history but of those whose voices have been stifled, are considered by some as divisive, as an attempt to rewrite history and negate the value of historical events, challenge the contribution of individuals, or vilify historical narratives. This misunderstanding is unfortunate but not unexpected given the results of scholars’ interrogations through CRT that demonstrate racism is in fact deeply embedded in our discourse and ideological practices. Ultimately, a recognition of racial injustice and racism is the goal of such work. In an effort to give a voice to the voiceless in history, work by numerous academic scholars and more popular authors are necessary. In addition, what and how we teach should be assessed for duplication or reproduction of these racially charged discourses and moments. This does not mean that history has to be rewritten. It means that history has to be interrogated for inaccuracy, oversimplification, or omission. When voices are stifled, excluded, or undervalued, part of the human story is lost. This is a tragedy. Unfortunately, there are individuals at all levels of society—from your average person to presidential hopefuls—who argue that interrogations of the past and critical scholarly research are a quest to brainwash the youth. These same individuals argue that children are being taught critical race theory in the classroom. Each claim is unwarranted. What is happening is scholars are

8  THE FUTURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL… 

215

taking a hard look at the human story and recognizing injustice in an effort to inform the future, a future that is more just and equitable. Teachers are not teaching critical race theory in schools; they are being trained to be responsive to the differences in their classrooms and being inclusive of various experiences and histories. Neither of these efforts are meant to destroy or demean. Rather, the purpose of critical scholarship and responsive pedagogical practices is to better understand, communicate, and support a future that is better than the past. This, too, is an oversimplification of very complex ideas, practices, and realities. However, when those that wish to streamline voices into one, excluding that which does not emulate one singular, unfounded ideal, humanity suffers. History from any perspective proves this argument.

Challenges for Higher Education, 2023–2024 The Higher Education Act is due for reauthorization by the 118th Congress. The timing of this reauthorization and the publication of this monograph is exceptionally timely. In June of 2023, the Supreme Court made two very important decisions relevant to higher education and the HEA. First, the Supreme Court blocked President Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Program, an effort to eliminate the burden of exorbitant loans preventing recent graduates in particular from achieving the goals they hoped for after college. Second, the Supreme Court ruled that colleges and universities can no longer use race as an indicator for college admissions, striking down affirmative action in higher education. Each of these decisions will hinder an unknown number of students from attending college and situate the next reauthorization as politically divisive and vital to the future of American higher education. Under the Student Loan Debt Forgiveness Program as approved prior to the Supreme Court block, 16 million people had been approved for debt relief. Income levels played a role in who was approved and what percentage of payment was expected was dependent upon income total and remaining disposable income after living expenses were deducted. This program targeted middle-income individuals the most, in part because this is the pay-strata for many people that fell under the category of eligible individuals. This limited the relief to those in need, much like aid packages in the HEA, and previous Pell Grant recipients were the people set to receive the highest amount of relief. For individuals who make less than $75,000 per year could be awarded between $10,000 and

216 

A. L. PALMADESSA

$20,000 in relief, but individuals accruing over $125,000 in annual pay were not awarded this relief. After the Supreme Court’s decision on 30 June 2023 to deem the student loan forgiveness plan unconstitutional, President Biden addressed the nation. He apologized for those who were already approved for the loan forgiveness and reminded the public of other programs his administration supported, such as the public service student loan forgiveness program. However, President Biden was quick to reprimand members of Congress who opposed this legislation and brought the challenge to the Court. Biden argued that it was ironic that the same individuals who oppose student loan forgiveness were the same people who profited from the PPP, the paycheck protection program, instituted during the pandemic to support businesses. Some of these members, as Biden pointed out, were allotted $1 million in loans, which were forgiven. The cost of the PPP was over $300 million more than the student loan forgiveness program, a program that directly impacted people, not businesses (Biden, 30 June 2023b). In an environment in which the benefits of higher education are challenged, the economy is unstable at best, tuition is rising, and purchase power is declining, offering a means to eliminate even the fear of debt for a college education negatively impacts those most in need who desire higher education. To make matters worse for higher education and policymakers who support higher education initiatives, the Supreme Court also struck down affirmative action policies in admissions in the cases against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In this decision, Chief Justice Roberts oversaw the overturning of 45 years of federally backed, court-approved affirmative action policies in college and university admissions. In the foundational Bakke case of 1978, Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court, which was divided, in favor of the UC Davis Medical School admissions policy that sought to diversify the student population. However, the use of a quota, i.e., specific number of spaces or percentage of population dedicated to one group over another, in this case race, was determined to be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Overall, however, the quest to diversify a student population through demographic data in admissions was not found to be in violation of the 14th Amendment. A similar issue was raised in the 2003 Grutter case when the admissions policies of the University of Michigan’s law school were challenged. In this decision, Powell’s position that using the criteria of race for diversity was constitutional was upheld. However, there were

8  THE FUTURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL… 

217

limitations placed on this position. First, it was recognized by the Court that assuming an individual has a special perspective because of their race is actually a stereotype. Second, the Court warned that the use of race in admissions could lead to a reversal, the use of race against an applicant. In a final effort to curb race as a consideration in college admissions, the Grutter decision argued that at some point, diversity should be achieved, and race as an indicator for admission needed an end point. The Court’s decision argued that since Bakke preceded Grutter by 25 years, that surely in the next 25 years, race as a factor in admissions would no longer be used. Thus, Chief Justice Roberts argued in his statement on behalf of the Court that, now that 20 years have passed since Grutter, the policies of UNC and Harvard do not include an end date. Chief Justice Roberts (600 U.S., 2023) wrote that the Court has: permitted race-based admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions. University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and—at some point—they must end. Respondents’ [UNC and Harvard] admissions systems—no matter how well intentioned and implemented in good faith—fail each of these criteria. They must therefore be invalidated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (p. 22)

The decision to strike down affirmative action in college admissions divided the Court. In the case against Harvard, the vote was 6-2; in the UNC case, 6-3. As evidenced in decisions earlier this year, this is a divided and predominantly conservative Court. President Biden responded to the Court’s decision with disappointment. He argued that the nation and its institutions are best served when diversity is present, and this decision reinforces the fact that discrimination based on race still exists in the US.  This is a call to action, according to Biden, to make sure that the nation does not slip backward into a culture where racism and discrimination dictate who has opportunity in the US (Biden, 29 June 2023a). These two decisions will have a profound impact on higher education. Institutions will have to wrestle with competing interests and values and will need to evaluate their admissions processes and policies. Ideological disputes regarding curriculum, how and what should be taught, and from what perspective will continue to divide departments, programs, and faculties, not to mention give ammunition for critics who claim academe is a haven for extreme ideas and individuals who seek to rewrite history. It is a

218 

A. L. PALMADESSA

time in which academicians will be challenged. What students expect from colleges and universities will change. How and if higher education is a valuable asset to the United States will be debated. This decision and the impending impact on higher education will be an indication of what the United States stands for in the middle of the twenty-first century. With the HEA past due for reauthorization, these decisions will absolutely impact the debates regarding grants, loans, equity, access, the purpose of education in the US, what role education plays in securing democracy, and how the federal government can support, challenge, or dictate how institutions respond to the new interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. What student debt rates and inability to receive support through repayment or forgiveness plans means for potential students will be a point of concern for Congress as these debates continue. The Higher Education Act was written with the goal of adding one more support for those disadvantaged by factors beyond their control—cyclical poverty, race, national economic constraints—and those willing to work as hard as they can to better position themselves to attain the American dream. These decisions invalidate two important efforts set forth in the HEA and each reauthorization: To make higher education accessible and attainable to all willing and able students, regardless of their background, wealth, race, gender, religious beliefs, or any other demographic factor that specifies an individual’s identity or distinguishing factor.

The Next Reauthorization The Higher Education Act of 1965 was created to leverage higher education as a means to create a more equal society. Colleges and universities were established in the Colonial era and the Early Republic to teach knowledge, values, understanding, and train to leaders for the betterment and progression of society. This charge is not lost to history. The Higher Education Act is one modern example of the importance and relevance of advanced education for the improvement of the human condition. Since the Higher Education was passed in 1965, countless students have utilized the programs and assistance offered in the landmark legislation. Whether through grants, loans, preparation, or retention programs, or as a result of regulatory provisions that protect individuals, the nation and individuals have benefitted from the work of the Education Congress. In each reauthorization, Congress worked to improve upon existing processes and programs and added new provisions as needed. Through the

8  THE FUTURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL… 

219

reauthorizations and amendments, protections were added for women and specific minority groups to promote diversity and live up to the promise of the HEA to make higher education accessible to all who desire it. In 1965, poverty and race were the challenges to access; Johnson’s Great Society, coupled with the War on Poverty and the Civil Rights Movement, pushed the HEA forward and solidified postsecondary education as a national need, one that benefits every level of American society. The 1968 amendments moved support programs established under complementary legislation in 1964 to the HEA, creating the TRIO programs and placing these equity initiatives under a more targeted legislative umbrella. The 1972 reauthorization provided two very important steps towards equality—the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants and Title IX. The BEOG, later Pell Grants, were entitled grants with no expectation for repayment provided to the neediest students. Title IX took the equity effort to include women, in addition to other minority populations. Vocational education and alternatives to traditional four-year institutions were included in the 1976 reauthorization, significantly expanding eligibility for support. In the 1980s, Congress had to challenge the executive branch to allocate funds for education; the institution accused of placing the US at risk of failure. The 1980 and 1986 reauthorizations increased support for the neediest students and recognized additional minority populations that were otherwise left out of previous iterations of the HEA. In 1992, HSIs were recognized as distinct and in need of support. The 1998 reauthorization focused on including higher income groups, more efficient loan programs, and included several k-12 and tax initiatives that impacted higher education policy, tangentially. The delayed reauthorization in 2008 was focused mainly on the allocation of funds and making sure that students, families, and those in need had access to needed financial aid. Although not a profoundly impactful reauthorization, several legislative actions ahead of the reauthorization supported the efforts of the HEA; the early stages of the financial crisis that coincided with the reauthorization positioned the Obama administration to highlight the promise of higher education in difficult economic conditions. Now, in 2023, the Higher Education Act is still the main source of financial aid for American college students in need. Title III continues to support institutions that are at risk but have plans to improve their status and dedication to minority and first-generation students in particular. The reach of Title III programs has extended and influenced replication at state and regional levels. The quest for equitable access for all to higher

220 

A. L. PALMADESSA

education, initiated by the HEA in 1965, stands at a crossroad. After the tumultuous and divisive presidency of Trump and the lasting impact of his challenges to and degradation of the purpose and value of higher education, not to mention complete apathy in response to racial injustice, higher education as a foundational American institution that supports and represents democratic ideals is threatened. Impending challenges to higher education as an institution for the Biden administration were already determined before the election. From the pandemic’s impact on enrollment and retention to Trump’s disdain for the intellectual class, the Biden administration was aware that higher education would become a battlefield. First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden, is an outspoken supporter of the value of higher education in the US. Her experience as a professor and leader in the community college initiatives under Obama as Second Lady perfectly positions her to be the national spokesperson for higher education access. Dr. Biden did advocate for increased access as part of President Biden’s Build Back Betzter initiative. Unfortunately, as discussed, that aspect of the legislation was pulled from the final iteration. Now, with the two recent Court decisions, higher education is back in political crosshairs and on the radar of the general public. The student debt forgiveness program was a disappointment and certainly elicits irony given the various loan forgiveness plans in recent history. However, the direct impact on the future of higher education will take an extended time to accurately assess. The affirmative action decision will have an immediate impact in practice and in the court of public opinion. Federal higher education policy has already been a point of debate, prior to these decisions. In 2023, from January to July, higher education has been discussed every month, whether directly related to policy initiatives or challenges regarding higher education in the US more broadly. Now that the public is aware of policy issues related specifically to access and equity, i.e., race, the topic of the HEA reauthorization will likely be a matter that the general public pays close attention to, especially as we approach the next election cycle and presidential race. The next reauthorization will be incredibly important to the duty to uphold the spirit of the original Higher Education Act—to make higher education accessible to all. Congressional leaders will need to put partisan battles aside, listen to higher education leaders and students, and determine what the best course of action for equity in higher education will be. This cannot be a divide over whether or not affirmative action is right or wrong; this cannot be about whether higher education is a vehicle for ideological control. This

8  THE FUTURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL… 

221

debate must be about affording as many people as possible the opportunity to pursue whatever level of education beyond high school that will help them reach their personal, financial, social, and intellectual goals. This, after all, is how democracy will thrive and how the United States can maintain a nation of equal opportunity and justice for all.

References Biden, J. (2023a, June 29). Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision on affirmative action. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-­room/ speeches-­r emarks/2023/06/29/remarks-­b y-­p resident-­b iden-­o n-­t he-­ supreme-­courts-­decision-­on-­affirmative-­action/ Biden, J. (2023b, June 30). Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision on the Administrations Student Debt Relief Program. https://www. whitehouse.gov/briefing-­r oom/speeches-­r emarks/2023/06/30/ remarks-­b y-­p resident-­b iden-­o n-­t he-­s upreme-­c ourts-­d ecision-­o n-­t he-­ administrations-­student-­debt-­relief-­program/ Juban, R., Wallace, D., & Vicknair, J. (2021). The perfect storm in higher education. American Journal of Management, 21(3), 9–16. Palmadessa, A.  L. (2017a). American national identity, policy paradigms, and higher education: A history of the relationship between higher Education and the United States, 1862-2015. Palgrave Macmillan. Palmadessa, A.  L. (2017b). America’s College Promise: Situating President Obama’s initiative in the history of federal access and aid policy. Community College Review, 45(1), 52–70. Palmadessa, A. L. (2023a). American Superiority, Democratic Idealism, and the Truman Commission: A Critical Discourse Historical Analysis of “Higher Education for American Democracy”. Peabody Journal of Education, in press. Palmadessa, A. L. (2023b). Making college education a right, not a privilege: Dr. Jill Biden’s Quest to make college free. In A.  Akande, Ed., Politics between nations - Power, peace and diplomacy. Springer. Palmadessa, A.  L. (2023c). Misunderstanding reinvigorates racism: The case of critical race theory in the public sphere. In A. Akande and B. Johansen, Eds., Racial inequality, xenophobia and populism: New forms of racism in the United States. Springer. Palmadessa, A. L. (2023d). Democracy in American public discourse: Power and the crisis of leadership, race, and division (or unity). In A. Akande, Ed. Racial inequality, xenophobia and populism: New forms of racism in the United States. Springer.

222 

A. L. PALMADESSA

Perna, L. W., Orosz, K., & Kent, D. C. (2019). The role and contribution of academic researchers in congressional hearings: A critical discourse analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 111–145. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, et  al. (2023). 600 U.S. 20-1199 and 21-707, pp. 9–48. Toner, M. (2021). 2021 National Legislative Summit Day 2 Recap + First Lady Dr. Jill Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Lawmakers Outline Administration and Congressional Agendas. AACT.org. https://www.acct. org/article/2021-­n ational-­l egislative-­s ummit-­d ay-­2 -­r ecap-­f irst-­l ady-­ dr-­jill-­biden-­house-­speaker-­nancy Trump, D. J. (2017). Remarks at the American Center for Mobility in Ypsilanti Township, Michigan Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/326414 Trump, D. J. (2020a). Remarks at a White House Conference on American History. The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-­white-­house-­conference-­american-­history Trump, D. J. (2020b, September 24). Remarks at a “Great American Comeback” Rally in Jacksonville, Florida. The American Presidency Project. https://www. presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-­great-­american-­comeback-­rally-­ jacksonville-­florida Trump, D. J. (2021). Remarks to Supporters Prior to the Storming of the United States Capitol Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/347341

Index

NUMBERS AND SYMBOLS 9/11, 177 A Access, vii, 1, 16, 32, 52, 101, 142, 184, 209 Admissions, viii, 8, 22, 39, 54, 55, 75–77, 95, 97, 183, 215–217 Affirmative action, viii, 54, 55, 72, 95, 97, 102, 159, 163, 164, 215–217, 220 Amendments, vii, 2, 6, 22, 28, 45, 46, 48, 49, 68–73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 88–90, 94–96, 105, 107, 114, 122, 147, 156, 157, 166, 169, 175, 187, 188, 200, 201, 219 American Graduation Initiative (AGI), 12, 202–204 America’s College Promise, 12, 203–204, 209 Appropriations, 108, 119, 121–125, 128 Authorization, 107, 111, 131, 204

B Bakke, 95, 96, 216, 217 Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG), 70, 71, 74, 77, 83, 84, 87, 96, 108, 219 Biden, Joseph R. Jr., 12, 129, 147, 205, 210–213, 215–217, 220 Biden, Dr. Jill, 203, 211–213, 220 Budget reconciliation, 150, 188, 199 Bush, George W., 12, 104, 142–158 Bush, G. H. W. (President), 138, 139, 182–202 C Capitalism, 65, 174 Carter (President), 12, 96, 101 Civil Rights Movement, 6, 11, 19, 22–26, 32–35, 37, 48, 67, 68, 143, 160, 219 Clinton, William J., 159–177, 202, 214

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. L. Palmadessa, Power, Discourse, and the Purpose of Policy in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43706-9

223

224 

INDEX

Cold War, 12, 19, 25, 27, 40, 43, 44, 56, 61, 67, 78, 79, 89–91, 116, 130, 138, 150, 151, 198 College, 5, 15, 33, 51, 102, 141, 183 Colonial era, 218 Communism, 44 Community college, 39, 70, 71, 77, 84, 92, 103, 109, 184, 191, 203, 204, 209, 211–213, 220 Conference report, 107, 114, 120, 121, 154 Congress, 5, 17, 31, 54, 106, 142, 181, 210 Critical discourse analysis (CDA), 4 Critical race theory (CRT), 214, 215 Curriculum, 18, 95, 104, 109, 209, 217 D Democracy, 3, 9, 11, 18, 43–44, 48, 51, 59, 60, 64–65, 89, 91, 117–119, 132–136, 152–154, 173–174, 187, 196–198, 210, 218, 221 Democratic-Republic, 134 Department of Education, 71, 98, 103, 105, 119, 138, 176, 202 Desegregation, 20, 32, 73, 82, 84, 95, 102, 105 Discourse, viii, 1–6, 9–11, 18, 28, 33, 36, 42, 43, 48, 73, 78, 79, 82, 86, 90, 117, 129–131, 135, 146, 153, 174, 192, 199, 214 Discourse historical approach (DHA), 4 Diversity, 54, 72, 86, 93, 98, 108, 163, 182, 216, 217, 219 E Early Republic, 218 Education, vii, 1, 15, 32, 51, 101, 141, 181, 209

Eisenhower, Dwight D. (President), 11, 20, 21, 23, 32 Equity, viii, 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 19, 22, 33–36, 48, 56–60, 64, 72–76, 78, 84–87, 92, 95, 97, 108–110, 122–125, 144–148, 158, 163–167, 185, 188–192, 194, 198, 205, 206, 212, 213, 218–220 Extension, 13, 17, 56, 78, 89, 149, 174, 187, 201 F Federal Government, 9, 11, 16–21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 33, 36, 37, 39, 44–50, 54, 58, 65–67, 70, 72, 79, 83, 84, 86, 87, 95, 97–99, 102, 112, 113, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 133, 139, 148, 150, 152–155, 157, 159, 160, 162, 168, 177, 182–188, 195, 197, 200–203, 205, 209–221 Ford, Gerald R., 77, 83 Foucault, Michele, 1, 4 Fourteenth Amendment, 218 G Goals 2000, 159 H Higher Education Act (HEA), vii, 1, 27, 32, 51, 114, 150, 181, 211 Higher Education Facilities Act (HEFA), 26, 27, 45, 49, 60, 65 Higher Education for American Democracy, 11, 18, 26

 INDEX 

History, viii, 2–4, 11, 12, 17, 22, 24, 38, 53, 60, 64, 66, 69, 78, 90, 117, 121, 122, 133–135, 148, 155, 164, 170, 185, 188, 197, 198, 205, 209, 214, 215, 217, 218, 220 House of Representatives, 46 J Johnson, L. B. (President), 6, 10–12, 21–27, 31–34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 43–48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57–61, 63–66, 97, 161, 172, 198, 205, 219 K Kennedy, John F. (President), 11, 21–27, 31, 32, 34, 43, 44, 58, 59, 65, 82, 90, 92, 122, 123, 125, 128–130, 134, 136, 145, 150, 152, 155, 157, 189 Knowledge-based economy, 139, 171, 181, 186, 194, 198, 209 L Legislation, vii, 2, 19, 32, 51, 105, 141, 182, 216 M Macro themes, 6, 8, 10, 60 Metaphor, viii, 61, 87, 90, 109, 114, 128, 131, 148, 152, 167, 168, 192, 197 Micro themes, 6, 8, 10, 11 Middle Income Student Assistance Act (MISAA), 96, 97, 111, 162 Mission, 109, 110, 116, 124, 145, 147, 194, 206

225

N National Defense Education Act (NDEA), vii, 8, 19, 26, 28, 32, 45, 49, 57, 58, 60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 103, 107, 114, 115, 119, 174, 197, 198 National identity, 130–132, 181 A Nation at Risk, 12, 101–139, 148, 151 Neoliberalism, 181–206 Nixon, Richard (President), 12, 21, 55, 70, 73, 75, 81–83, 91, 97 O Obama, Barack (President), 12, 202–206, 209, 213, 214, 219, 220 P Pell Grant, 71, 97, 106, 108, 111, 124, 143–145, 149, 153, 158, 165, 167, 169, 184, 187, 188, 190, 194, 198, 212, 215, 219 Policy genealogy, 1, 3 Poverty, 5, 6, 8, 11, 31, 33–37, 40, 44, 46–48, 64, 66, 73, 75, 85, 86, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 121, 123, 146, 150, 158, 160, 164, 166, 167, 169, 170, 175, 188, 218, 219 Protest, 12, 23, 51, 54, 56, 57, 63, 65, 67–70, 101, 210 R Race, vii, 6, 8, 11, 22–24, 26, 31–35, 43, 44, 49, 51, 52, 54–56, 58, 72–75, 85, 86, 98, 104, 105, 164, 166, 176, 190, 197, 198, 204, 215–220

226 

INDEX

Reagan, Ronald (President), 12, 101–106, 112, 122, 123, 128–130, 132, 135, 137–139, 155, 157 Reauthorization, vii, 1, 28, 48, 51, 106, 143, 181 Representative Green, 32, 43, 65, 74, 75, 81 Retention, 150, 158, 202, 218, 220 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano (President), 17, 23, 203 Russia, 19, 26, 41, 44, 198 S Sallie Mae, 162 Secretary of Education, 102, 107, 119, 121 Secretary Spellings, 182, 187 Senate, 39, 46, 56, 62, 75, 105–107, 111, 121–124, 128, 132, 136, 147, 189, 192, 194, 201, 204 Senator Javits, 63, 73, 75, 76, 81, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118 Senator Pell, 86, 108, 109, 130, 144, 145, 149, 151, 155 Senator Stafford, 114, 115, 119, 127 Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, vii, 8, 18 Sputnik, 19, 26, 79, 103, 105, 115, 116, 136, 197, 198 Stafford Loan, 96, 158, 162 Student debt, 218, 220 Student loans, 59, 84, 85, 97, 111, 113, 121, 126, 137, 138, 161–163, 167, 169, 176, 187, 188, 199, 202, 216 Student success, 106 Supreme Court, viii, 20, 54, 82, 95, 215, 216

T Tax relief, 35, 45, 46, 56, 143, 159, 161 Technology transfer, 12, 102, 141 Truman, Harry S. (President), 11, 18, 20, 23, 26, 203 Truman Commission, 18, 19, 26, 89 Truman Commission report, 11 Trump, D. J. (President), 12, 205, 209–211, 213, 220 Tuition, 28, 38, 45, 46, 70, 72, 77, 84, 91, 96, 97, 101, 102, 106, 108–111, 113, 120, 123, 124, 142–144, 159, 161, 165–167, 169, 182, 183, 188, 191, 192, 194, 198, 199, 202, 204, 216 U University, 5, 11, 15–18, 25–27, 38, 39, 49, 52–57, 61, 65, 67–69, 72, 93, 95, 97, 101–103, 109, 110, 112, 123, 127, 131, 133–135, 141, 142, 152, 155, 158, 163–165, 171, 174, 183, 190, 194, 195, 201, 210, 215, 216, 218 US history, 210 USSR, 78, 117, 138, 150, 153, 154, 197 V Vietnam, 12, 23, 26, 32, 44, 45, 48, 51, 61, 65, 67–69, 72, 76, 78, 79, 90, 116 Vocational education, 17, 62, 84, 86–88, 94, 95, 122, 127, 137, 210, 219 W World War II, 17–21, 43, 44, 53, 89, 116, 171, 197