Erin McHenry-Sorber Essay
If you ask our students the question of whether college should be free, the immediate answer that comes to mind is a resounding “yes!” The question, like most policy questions, is incredibly complex and situated within historical, economic, and social contexts that shape the way Americans feel about higher education. The issue has risen to prominence in this presidential cycle, particularly within the Democratic party, but policies aimed at equitable postsecondary access and affordability have roots that can be traced back almost 70 years.
The Truman Commission in the 1940s envisioned postsecondary education as an institution that should be available to all citizens, placing equality as an enduring legacy of its report on higher education. In the decades that have followed, we have seen a waxing and waning of a commitment to equity of access and opportunity for all people. Movements through the 1960s elevated the importance of equity and made great strides in expanding opportunities for higher education to African Americans and women. The 1960s also saw achievement in policies geared toward equal access through federal grant programs. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, we began to experience a profound shift in the way policymakers and the populace defined the purpose and value of higher education as an institution whose purpose it was to secure the economic dominance of the nation, and the system has become increasingly privatized.
Within this now-entrenched neoliberal framing of higher education, the federal government became increasing interested in student loans over free grant monies, and states began investing fewer dollars in their public higher education systems, a trend that has continued steadily to the present day. In response, postsecondary education institutions became increasingly reliant on tuition dollars to make up the difference in lost government subsidies, bringing us to what many deem a crisis in higher education tuition costs and student debt loads.
In the current presidential campaign cycle, we have seen a return by some candidates to early ideals of affordability and access within a rhetoric of equality (though the issue is simultaneously framed in terms of the economic good of the nation). Hillary Clinton just released a plan this week for free public postsecondary education and a renewed commitment to federal Pell grants, in consultation with former presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. Such a policy could have dramatic impacts on higher education access for underrepresented populations and could increase diversity in terms of race, wealth, and ethnicity on public institution campuses.
As my own policy professor, Paul Reville, former Massachusetts Secretary of Education, was fond of saying, “The devil’s in the details.” Jay Cole led this conversation with some critical questions about the actual implementation and unintended consequences of a policy designed to make college tuition-free. These, in turn, have led to more questions for me.
Will the funding scheme proposed by Clinton (an increased tax on the wealthiest Americans) coupled with increased state investments work? How would states pay an increased share? Would the money flow from the federal government, or would states engage in their own spending plans? If the plan to increase access is successful, will public institutions possess the infrastructure necessary to provide academic, social, and health services to a historically underrepresented population of students? Would more selective public institutions increase enrollment to meet potential new demands, and what would be their incentive to do so? If they lack the infrastructure, how will they pay for it? How do the trends towards increased access and institutional accountability for student success affect the ability of public institutions to fulfill their missions and achieve compliance with government mandates? As my Higher Education colleague, Nate Sorber asks, is there a benefit to making college more affordable through blanket free public higher education for all versus targeted means-tested financial aid?
To answer these questions, we first need to ask ourselves this: Do the majority of Americans believe in higher education for the public good, and are they willing to pay for this good?