Government Relations: Outlook for the Coming Year
By Mark F. Smith
In addition to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA), the new Congress will deal with a number of issues that threaten academic freedom. Proponents of a stronger USA Patriot Act will point to election results to bolster their case, and there will be pointed debates on the issues involved in the coming months. The partisan balance will be relatively unchanged, although slightly more Republican. There will be some important personnel changes, mostly on the Senate side.
In the House, the main players in the HEA reauthorization debate will remain the same. Representative John Boehner of Ohio will continue as chair of the Education and the Workforce Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the HEA. Representative Howard McKeon of California should remain chair of the Subcommittee on Twenty-first Century Competitiveness, which has jurisdiction over the student aid and institutional aid sections of the bill. The Subcommittee on Select Education has jurisdiction over other contentious elements of the HEA: international and graduate student programs. Legislation pertaining to the USA Patriot Act will be considered by the House Judiciary Committee, where Representative F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin will remain chair.
The Senate will see more substantive changes. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has jurisdiction over the HEA. Senator Mike Enzi from Wyoming will become chair, with former chair Judd Gregg of New Hampshire moving to chair the Budget Committee. Enzi has been a strong proponent of digital distance education and removal of restrictions that he believes discriminate against such innovative forms of education. The AAUP argues that many ofthese restrictions are actually quality protections.
A major political struggle occurred in the Judiciary Committee. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania was in line to replace Orrin Hatch of Utah as chair, but conservatives outside the Senate launched a furious campaign to block his appointment. One organization, RightMarch.com, issued an alert claiming, "We won the Presidency. We won the House. We won the Senate. But we're about to lose any chance of getting conservative judges through the new Senate—because an ultra-liberal Republican is about to take control of the Senate Judiciary Committee." (Emphasis in original.) Although Specter was able to overcome the challenge, the Judiciary Committee will be a contentious body in the new Congress.
Regarding the substance of the HEA, the Association's position remains tied to the four major themes it stressed in 2003 in The Higher Education Act: A Faculty Perspective on Reauthorization: (.pdf) access, quality, diversity, and openness. Recent congressional initiatives have raised major concerns on several of these fronts. The House proposed that a politically appointed "international advisory board" be appointed to oversee international studies programs authorized under the act. Although the Senate never took the proposal up, it will be reintroduced next year.
In addition, Representative McKeon has indicated that he intends to reintroduce the College Access and Opportunity Act in the new Congress. Not only does the act include language from the so-called Academic Bill of Rights, which infringes on academic freedom while purporting to protect it, but the bill also mandates federal control of transferability of courses and expands Pell Grant eligibility without adequate quality safeguards.
These bills reflect a continued effort by some in the administration and the Congress to establish federal standards for higher education. This approach combines an instrumental conception of higher education as necessary for economic success with a staggering role for the federal government in education policy. To say the least, it is a surprising tack for so-called conservatives to take. And yet this increased federal role includes relaxation of regulations that are intended to provide some quality protection for students taking courses from for-profit enterprises.
It will be critical for faculty to articulate alternative visions of education in the coming years. It will not be enough to criticize proposals that curtail academic freedom or limit educational offerings to a market-oriented set of standard courses. Faculty need to explain the importance of academic freedom for the classroom, the community, and the pursuit of knowledge. They must clarify the distinction between broad academic balance and narrow political balance. And they need to remind themselves, as well as others, that what we do is important, deserves respect—and entails responsibilities.
Mark Smith is AAUP director of government relations.
|