AJC.com > Opinion > Opinion Talk
Should black, white colleges merge?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
As chairman of the Senate Higher Education Committee, state Sen. Seth Harp (R-Midland) thinks he’s found a way to save money: Consolidate some public colleges.
Harp’s proposal does more than just chafe against the usual sentimental attachments to familiar institutions. It also touches the raw nerve of race. Given the suspicions that linger on both sides of the color line, his plan— which suggests merging two historically black colleges with two traditionally white schools — is sure to spark drawn-out debate, fevered protests and intemperate accusations.
No matter. Harp has the right idea: There is no good reason to maintain separate but equal public facilities in close proximity. Following that reasoning, he has asked the University System to consider consolidating historically black Savannah State University with nearby Armstrong Atlantic State University and historically black Albany State University with Darton College, a two-year institution in Albany.
Already, the suggestion has drawn criticism. State Sen. Vincent Fort, (D-Atlanta), a college lecturer, dismissed it as “a bad idea.” A similar proposal died a quick death 25 years ago, after then-Gov. Joe Frank Harris proposed merging black and white colleges to speed up court-ordered desegregation. But now that dire economic circumstances have forced the idea back onto the table, let’s not let this crisis go to waste. Use the opportunity to remove the last vestiges of Jim Crow from the University System.
Permalink | Comments (39) | Categories: Forum
Should HOPE be need-based?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Most HOPE Scholarship recipients in Georgia were college-bound from the cradle. The question was never whether they would go to college, but where.
Because of the generosity of HOPE, which covers tuition and a portion of books and fees at the state’s public institutions, many now choose schools such as the University of Georgia, Georgia College and State University and Georgia Tech rather than a private campus. The rush toward public campuses will be even more pronounced this year as families confront shrunken college funds in the wake of the economic downturn.
Many parents who assumed their bright 18-year-olds would end up at prestigious and more expensive out-of-state private schools are now waxing poetic about the charms of downtown Athens or historic Milledgeville. Nationwide, public colleges and universities are seeing record applications as worried families recoil from $40,000-a-year private school tuitions.
Whenever my high school senior mentions Columbia University and the excitement of going to college in New York City, I begin ticking off all the things I couldn’t afford when I attended grad school there, including food. Wouldn’t it be great, I tell him, to join his older sister at UGA and occasionally be able to splurge on a pizza? As a middle-class parent, I’m delighted that HOPE has reduced the basic college tab of my daughter to about $10,000 a year, the cost of room and board at UGA. But on a public policy level, I wonder if it’s the best use of scarce state resources.
A Harvard study found that only 4 percent of the money spent on HOPE went to students who might not otherwise have gone to college. Would the state net more from its investment if it instead targeted HOPE to needy students for whom the money plays a decisive role in whether they go to college?
Even without HOPE, my daughter would be in college today. Our household would assume more loans, see fewer movies and eat less take-out. If necessary, we’d borrow from our retirement funds. Somehow, we’d pull it off.
Those who support leaving HOPE merit-based argue that the scholarship only demands that high school students have a 3.0 grade point average. A 3.0 isn’t an extremely high standard for students to achieve, they say.
However, it’s a high enough threshold to shut out a lot of poor urban and rural kids. For these students, higher education was always an aspiration rather than an assumption. Many have as much potential as middle-class kids; they just lack the same opportunities. Yes, those students could resort to loans, but it’s hard to persuade children who grew up in families with an annual income of $30,000 that it’s a good idea to strap on a debt load that exceeds their households’ yearly earnings.
Two weeks ago, the Kentucky state auditor advised a panel studying college affordability that it ought to reconsider the state’s merit-based college scholarship program in view of the budget crisis. It may be wiser, the auditor suggested, to channel the funds to need-based recipients. The essential question for states is whether there’s enough of a payoff to justify funding the college education of the children of cardiologists and CEOs. Would states experience a greater return if they directed limited scholarships to kids who wouldn’t go to college otherwise?
And while some argue that not everyone needs a college degree, the data indicate that the benefits of higher education extend beyond the individual to the community and state as a whole. In the next 10 years, high-skill jobs requiring postsecondary education will comprise almost half of the country’s job growth.
On average, college graduates earn 70 percent more per year than high school grads and are more likely to receive health and retirement benefits at their jobs. They live longer and healthier. They pay more taxes and use fewer government services. They commit fewer crimes and spend more money. They contribute more to charity and volunteer more.
On a personal level, I prefer that HOPE remain untouched. The increased competition for spots at UGA and other campuses has led to more rigorous high school courses and prompted students, including my own kids, to work harder. Now I can pay for college for my four children without selling a kidney.
However, on a public policy level, I can’t help but believe that HOPE provides the greatest advantages to the kids already born with them.
Do profs pull students to left?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
New research contradicts the assertion that colleges are hotbeds of liberal indoctrination where professors turn malleable students into soy latte-sipping, Birkenstock-wearing, Jon Stewart-watching lefties. If students become more liberal in college, it is usually because of the influence of their peers, not their professors, according to UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute.
The impact is also often temporary, with many students, particularly women, moving back to the right after graduation.
Those findings don’t surprise me. In my own experiences teaching college, I had a hard enough time getting students to attend class, never mind talking them into marching on Washington or volunteering for voter registration drives.
In another recent study, political scientists surveyed about 7,000 students at 38 campuses and found that while students could detect their professor’s political leanings through subtle cues, no evidence existed that the instructor’s views caused the students to change theirs.
In fact, the authors of the new book, “Closed Minds? Politics and Ideology in American Universities,” contend that there’s not too much political discourse roiling college classrooms today, but too little.
“Overall, to our surprise, we found that, far from being saturated in politics, the universities generally have all but ignored what used to be called civics,” conclude the authors. “Most professors, like most Americans, have an aversion to politics and find ways to avoid thinking seriously about politics and political issues.”
Most of the complaints about liberal campuses come from state legislators, who allege that conservative students are treated as enemy combatants in the culture wars. Last year, state Rep. Tom Rice of Peachtree Corners introduced a bill to prevent professors from filling the minds of students with liberal dogma.
House Bill 154 stated: “Teachers should not take unfair advantage of the immaturity of students by indoctrinating them with their own opinions before the students have had an opportunity to examine other opinions.”
Among the bill’s provisions: Georgia’s public colleges hire an ombudsmen to investigate complaints of intellectual discrimination and submit reports to the Legislature detailing their efforts toward “intellectual diversity.”
Rice’s goal, he said, was to allow students to speak without fear of reprisal or reprimand.
But is every opinion equal and should teachers honor all viewpoints?
A student once accused me of espousing “dangerous” liberal ideology because I encouraged women in the class to pursue their ambitions to become journalists. Under his belief system, women were supposed to defer to their husbands’ viewpoints and remain at home. Culturally and religiously, he objected to women taking classes and teaching them.
If HB 154 had passed, would I have been required to accept that young man’s opinion in the name of intellectual diversity? As it was, I recommended that he get comfortable with women in his class and workplace or consider a move not only to another college, but to another country. Because I intended to keep on encouraging talented women —- and men —- to chase their dreams.
Permalink | Comments (25) | Categories: Forum
What should be Michelle Obama’s legacy as First Lady?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
An Associated Press story notes that Michelle Obama has “been compared to Jacqueline Kennedy, is every bit as high-powered as Hillary Rodham Clinton was and has praised Laura Bush’s calm and rational approach to issues.
“So what kind of first lady will Michelle Obama be?”
The AP article continues:
“It may be too soon to know — she’s probably still trying to figure it all out herself. This much is certain: She will be the kind of first lady this country hasn’t seen in decades: the mother of young children.”
Which First Lady do you think Michelle Obama will most be like? Or do you think she will carve her own legacy?
Permalink | Comments (24) | Categories: Forum
Stereotypes will crash and burn
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
As I watched President-elect Barack Obama’s beautiful family take the stage Tuesday night, the other part of this huge historic moment came into view:
The nation will have a black first lady. We’ll see gorgeous little black girls cavorting about the White House lawn. In this country, paradigms shift and the culture changes through symbolism and theater: The mere sight of a black First Family will change perceptions about black women, about black children, about black families.
If Obama impressed the nation just by showing up at the debates speaking the Queen’s English, not lapsing into rhyme or rap, keeping his cool and answering questions intelligently, then his elegant and accomplished wife will surely impress with her style, her intellect and her devotion to her children. And aren’t those kids darling!
Stereotypes will crash and burn during an Obama administration.
Permalink | Comments (643) | Categories: Forum
Latest comments
I agree BT fan… Seems like she tries to polarize the citizens. Lot’s of vitrial to the Party of Lincoln.... read the full comment by Coffee Creamer | Comment on Should black, white colleges merge? Read Should black, white colleges merge?
Agreed Regina - as were yours.... read the full comment by DJ | Comment on Should black, white colleges merge? Read Should black, white colleges merge?
So, BT Fan, how exactly is this particular article an example of her “sulk[ing] whites?” I’m confused. She’s endorsing a plan to consider black-white mergers as a means of addressing the vestiges of Jim Crow. It’s called... read the full comment by Morehouse-Harvard Alum | Comment on Should black, white colleges merge? Read Should black, white colleges merge?
Morehouse-Harvard Alum, also excellent points…... read the full comment by Regina | Comment on Should black, white colleges merge? Read Should black, white colleges merge?