| ... |
... |
@@ -1,16
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-1 |
| 2 |
|
-State funding for public colleges is on a downward trajectory – donors make up for the loss. Harnisch ‘10/28 |
| 3 |
|
-Thomas Harnisch serves as the Director of State Relations and Policy Analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) “Trending to Zero: The Lasting Impact of Total State Disinvestment from Public Higher Education.” The Evolution. October 28, 2016. https://evolllution.com/managing-institution/government_legislation/trending-to-zero-the-lasting-impact-of-total-state-disinvestment-from-public-higher-education/ JJN |
| 4 |
|
-The term “privatization” is frequently invoked to describe the current and future state of public higher education. The label is used as shorthand for the shift away from state funding and toward tuition and other private revenue streams. State funding cuts for public colleges and universities have produced an evolving administrative model increasingly influenced by corporate-style management, where market-driven metrics replace mission statements and where reliance on revenues from campus assets, donors, out-of-state student enrollment and other non-public sources fill the gap left by ever-diminishing state appropriations. Public university privatization has been years in the making. According to the Pell Institute, state funding efforts for public higher education today stand at 55 percent of what they were in 1980. While the presidential campaign—particularly Bernie Sanders’ proposal to make public colleges free—has created some political pressure in the opposite direction, absent a radical realignment of federal and state funding practices, the disinvestment trend is expected to accelerate due to projected growth in other state budget items. While states often increase funding for public higher education during stronger budget cycles, the increases typically do not make up for the cuts from difficult years, and state funding patterns suggest an inexorable downward trajectory. |
| 5 |
|
- |
| 6 |
|
-Survival for most colleges relies on donor support. Vise ‘11 |
| 7 |
|
-Daniel de Vise – Author and Journalist at Washington Post. “Public colleges tap private funds as state support dwindles.” Washington Post. July 2, 2011. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/public-colleges-tap-private-funds-as-state-support-dwindles/2011/06/29/AGHiWQvH_story.html?utm_term=.c4f99cada77a JJN |
| 8 |
|
-As state subsidies for higher education are dwindling, public colleges in the Washington region and elsewhere are learning they must tap private funds to survive. Fundraising by George Mason University rose from $3 million in 1990 to $32 million in 2010, according to an industry survey by the Council for Aid to Education. After adjusting for inflation, that amounts to a nearly four-fold increase. The survey showed donations to the University of Maryland Baltimore County surged from about $1 million to $8 million in that span. Towson University’s fundraising climbed from $1 million to $6 million. Such fundraising campaigns, echoed in other states, come as legislatures across the nation are cutting higher education budgets. Per-student state funding has dwindled from $8,035 in 2000 to $6,451 in 2010 nationwide, in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers. The trend has spawned dark humor. Public colleges, some in the field say, have evolved from state-supported to state-assisted to state-located. “We are at, in the current fiscal year, the lowest funding level in 30 years. And it’s clearly going to get worse,” said Dan Hurley, director of state relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Young, ambitious state institutions such as George Mason are playing a desperate game of catch-up against an elite group of older universities with billion-dollar endowments and a long tradition of giving. Johns Hopkins University, Georgetown University and the University of Virginia each raise hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Even the flagship University of Maryland, a relative upstart, took in $87 million in fiscal year 2010. Legislatures are shifting the cost of college to students: public university tuition has nearly doubled nationwide in the past decade. Most public colleges have relied on state funding and student tuition for nearly all their revenue. Now, they are looking to build other funding sources, turning to private donors with unprecedented vigor. Flagship public universities are insulated against the state funding losses, partly on the strength of massive fundraising operations. Even before the decline in state funding, the University of Virginia drew only one quarter of its revenue from Richmond. Other state institutions are more vulnerable. State cuts drove Virginia Commonwealth University to an unprecedented 24 percent tuition increase in 2010. George Mason hasn’t raised faculty salaries in three years. Around the region, state universities are hiring fewer tenure-track professors, allowing class sizes to grow and pressing student lounges into use as teaching spaces. George Mason, a onetime U-Va. branch campus that gained independence in 1972, relied on the state for 60 percent of its operating budget as recently as a decade ago. Today, that share has fallen below 30 percent. Per-student state funding has dropped from $5,319 in 2001 to $3,238 in 2011, in constant dollars. Twenty years ago, “fundraising in any aggressive way was simply not on the radar screen” of regional state universities and younger research universities, said Gary Rubin, vice president for university advancement at Towson. The typical college raises private dollars largely from a small group of wealthy and older alumni. Plaques on ancient campus buildings bespeak the tradition of giving. |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
-Administrators need the ability to regulate speech to keep donors happy. Press and Student Nation ‘16 |
| 11 |
|
-ALEX PRESS is a PhD student in sociology based in Boston. STUDENTNATION First-person accounts from student activists, organizers and journalists reporting on youth-oriented movements for social justice, economic equality and tolerance. “Silence on Campus: Contingent Work and Free Speech.” The Nation. February 17, 2016. https://www.thenation.com/article/silence-on-campus-contingent-work-and-free-speech/ JJN |
| 12 |
|
-Corporatization creates a dilemma for higher education: College, unlike most businesses, serves a social function—the production and transfer of knowledge—the achievement of which requires an environment of intellectual freedom that can conflict with profit margins, as some actors central to the model, such as donors, may take issue with controversial speech. In the past, tenure resolved some of this tension—once professors gain tenure, they’re walled off from these pressures, at least theoretically. With the erosion of tenure and a slack academic job market, free speech disappears as professors become increasingly disposable. As Steven Vallas, a sociologist at Northeastern University who researches the changing nature of work, argues, a professor’s right to speak freely presumes a foundation of job stability. “If you have an expansion of the adjunct, precarious professoriate, than you really are eroding the proportion of people who can speak their mind.” In contrast to claims that censorious students are the central threat to the ability of college to serve as a marketplace of ideas, the silencing of speech that comes with a sense of one’s disposability appears much more powerful. Conceding the difficulty of capturing the preemptive stifling of debate that comes with disposable worker status, we can take the severity of repercussions visited upon those who don’t censor themselves as indicative of the problem. Take the case of Steven Salaita, an indigenous studies scholar whose offer of a position at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign was rescinded after he tweeted critically about Israel’s 2014 attack on Gaza. A violation of academic freedom that resulted in a rare formal censure from the AAUP, for Salaita, administrative censorship is no secret. “For the uninitiated, the levels of vitriol and retribution that attend criticism of Israel can be stunning,” he writes, referencing a report authored by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Palestine Legal that details hundreds of reported acts of suppression of pro-Palestine advocacy in under two years. Salaita sued the University of Illinois for violating his rights. While he settled out of court for $875,000, discovery findings from his lawsuit reveal the likelihood of donor influence on the decision to fire him, with the chancellor communicating with donors about Salaita’s tweets and his possible dismissal. As Salaita’s case demonstrates, the extent of donor pressure goes a long way to explain why administrations might choose to silence speech, explains William Robinson, a professor at the University of California–Santa Barbara. In 2009, Robinson caught the attention of outside organizations that then pressured UCSB administrators to charge him with violating the university’s academic code of conduct, according to Robinson’s account of the incident, as well as details published by his supporters. Explaining the role financial needs play in decisions to censor faculty in public higher education, Robinson argues, “As public funding is cut, the administration becomes more reliant on private donors. These donors then use that leverage, threatening to withdraw donations if an administration doesn’t act.” The problem is worsening as public funds for higher education are drying up across the country, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. As this money dwindles, administrations turn to wealthy donors, creating the conditions under which prestigious donors can sway administrator’s decisions on how to respond to controversial faculty, if those faculty can get hired in the first place. |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
-Turns case – lack of financial backing kills quality of education. Webley 12 |
| 15 |
|
-Kayla Webley, Kayla Webley is a Staff Writer at TIME., 1-25-2012, "Students Bear the Burden of State Higher Ed Cuts," TIME, http://business.time.com/2012/01/25/students-bear-the-burden-of-state-higher-ed-cuts/ MG |
| 16 |
|
-Over the past year, state funding for higher education has declined by nearly 8. In real terms, that amounts to $6 billion less being funneled into the nation’s public colleges and universities at a time when the demand for the degrees they provide is at an all-time high. According to the annual Grapevine report from the Center for the Study of Education Policy at Illinois State University, 41 states reduced funding as a result of the slow economic recovery and the end of federal stimulus funds. Of those, 29 states allocated less money in the 2011-12 school year than they did in the pre-recession 2006-07 school year. And further, 14 states reduced funds by more than 10. In the most extreme case, New Hampshire reduced public funding for its colleges and universities by 41; at the other end of the spectrum, North Carolina decreased funding by only 1, and nine states managed to increase total state spending for higher ed. (MORE: Which Cities Spend the Most on Snack Foods?) As state money declines, universities are left with no choice but to put more of the financial burden on students — the same students who are already taking on more debt than ever recorded. “There’s an awful lot of substitution of student money for state money,” said Dennis Jones, president of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. “The first reaction is always to increase tuition.” At the same time, also as a result of the cuts, schools are curtailing need-based financial aid programs. “Students are being hit with a double whammy — higher cost and less help,” Jones added. But not only are students footing more of the bill, they are getting less bang for their buck. In order to compensate for the lack of funds, universities have made a host of significant changes — and almost none of them are good for students. To start, universities have been forced to scale back the number of enrollment slots they can offer in the first place and recruit more out-of-state (and thus higher-tuition paying) students to up their bottom lines. Here’s one way this scenario could play out: Since elite schools are the ones that most effectively recruit out-of-state students, we’ll start with Student A, a California resident, who is qualified to attend the University of California, Berkeley, but is shut out because out-of-state students have snapped up a larger portion of the enrollment slots than in years past. So, instead of Berkeley, Student A enrolls in a more mid-level state school, like UC Davis. As a result, Student B, who in the past would have been a shoo-in at Davis, is denied admission, and instead opts to attend a community college. Consequently, Student C, whose only option is community college, is shut out of higher education altogether. Those students who are lucky enough to get in often have a hard time finding space in the classes they need as universities slash classes and programs. “We’re seeing dramatic cases of students being enrolled in schools and then finding they can’t get into the courses they need to graduate,” said Paul Lingenfelter, president of the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, the group that works with Grapevine to issue the report. “If you can’t provide seats in the classroom because you don’t have the money to hire faculty, that’s a denial of access for students.” (MORE: Students Bear the Burden of State Higher Ed Cuts) If they’re lucky enough to get into the classes they want, students are more likely to be taught by adjunct faculty instead of full-time professors. The potential negative for students in this scenario is that adjunct faculty, who may be good teachers, don’t shoulder the responsibility of advising and mentoring students. “It’s not unusual for adjuncts to come in, teach a class and be gone,” Jones said. “In California they call them freeway fliers because they may teach at several schools in order to make a living themselves.” According to Jones, the students most likely to have adjunct faculty are freshmen, meaning many students begin their college careers without seeing faculty who are permanent fixtures at the university. Of course, there are other ways to compensate for a lack of funds that don’t have a direct negative impact on students — including consolidating campuses, cutting programs with low-enrollment, scaling back administrative costs, being more energy efficient, etc. — but four years into the recession, most of the easy cuts have already been made, leaving raising tuition as the last option standing. But that’s not to say it’s a good option. “You have to worry most about the students who aren’t there that should be,” Lingenfelter said. “It’s very clear as cost has risen and aid has been stretched, that there are so many students who should be in higher education today that are not because they can’t afford to be.” |