A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of participating in a series of
briefings sponsored by NAICU, the National Association of Independent Colleges
and Universities, on Capitol Hill. NAICU and its president, David Warren, have
been steadfast advocates for private higher education, keeping member
institutions apprised of potentially harmful developments that could affect
college and university enrollments nationwide.
What we learned in Washington earlier this month was that March -- not
April, in the poet's words -- may be the "cruelest month." All
colleges and universities, public and private, are well advised to keep a wary
eye on Washington lawmakers' deliberations as they confront
"fiscal-cliff" budget sequestration.
These automatic federal spending cuts, scheduled to go into effect March 1,
would critically reduce Federal Work Study and Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grants. Pell Grants, though spared this year, would remain at risk.
We at Bethany College have expressed concern for months to legislative
representatives in Washington about the potentially harmful impact of reduced
Pell Grants and federal budget cuts for higher education, in general. Although we
private-college leaders recognize our responsibility to raise the bulk of funds
ourselves for enhancing the attractiveness of our institutions to prospective
students, Washington still sets much of the tone for consumer confidence,
affordability of higher education and projections of economic stability. A
family's commitment to any form of higher education these days -- private or
public -- represents a significant investment of funds and faith, as well as an
understandable desire for a return on that investment.
These are critical times for students and their families as they shop
around for the best financial-aid deals at desirable colleges and universities
-- an important time for the institutions, too. Most campuses leverage
financial aid as part of their marketing sell to high school juniors and
seniors. That's because higher-education choice remains a buyer's market,
giving prospective students and their families unprecedented opportunity to
compare institutions' offers of discounted tuition -- usually in the form of
generous scholarships that defray the sticker price of enrolling.
The higher-education landscape is already changing due to the emergence of
for-profit providers, MOOC's ("massive open online courses"), the
public's growing expectations of value for their tuition dollars and other
factors. So amid these uncertain economic projections, the pressure is on
campuses to increase funds for merit scholarships, to package available
financial aid attractively and innovatively and to keep up to date with the
quality-of-life campus extras that students and their families expect when
choosing a college these days.
All of this underscores a discussion theme of NAICU's annual meetings in
Washington: whether higher-education presidents need to speak out publicly on
such broad national issues. Yes, we do. It's in our best interest to do so.
Although many presidents are reluctant to voice their opinions in public,
for fear of offending key constituents (donors and/or legislators), I see
little reason to decline an opportunity for using the "bully pulpit"
of our offices. Throughout my own 22 years as a college president at three
institutions, I have been supported by my governing boards for voicing public
support for key higher-education initiatives. These have included joining the American
College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment to reduce campus
emissions that contribute to climate change and most recently signing a letter
to President Obama, pledging to engage our campuses in a national dialogue
about gun control and mental health, and urging adoption of gun-safety
legislation.
So now is the time, as well, for presidents and other institutional leaders
to weigh in on the political deliberations that influence economic policy in
this country. Our stewardship of our students and their investment in our
institutions should extend to protecting them from the worst results of the
"fiscal cliff" as well as harmful climate change and gun violence.
(And, no, I don't mean to imply that an economic crisis or climate change is
equivalent to mass shootings.)
A January 28, 2013, letter by Oglethorpe University President Lawrence M.
Schall to the editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education reminds us
of former University of Notre Dame President Father Theodore Hesburgh's charge
to other presidents: "How can we urge students to have the courage to
speak out unless we are willing to do so ourselves?"
Because America's institutions of higher education have traditionally
fostered open dialogue about the most compelling issues of our times, we should
not find it inconsistent to join the current debate about how best to address
economic problems that affect not only our campuses, but all of our citizens.
To shrink from doing so relegates our institutions to an unsettling and
unnecessary silence.
Dr. Scott D. Miller is president
of Bethany College and M.M. Cochran Professor of Leadership Studies. Now in his
22nd year as a college president, he serves as a consultant to college
presidents and boards.
