Diversity In Higher Education Threatened By Budget Cuts

The hallowed halls of higher education may be filling up with more of the same faces this fall semester. In fact, since 2000, the trend of increased diversity at colleges and universities is in serious jeopardy of subsiding. Who is the culprit threatening higher education diversity? That culprit is the current economic climate, and the states’ reaction of slashing their budgets, thus negatively affecting the programs established to ensure ethnic and racial diversity at colleges and universities across the United States.

CollegeInSight indicates an increase in racial and ethnic diversity starting in the 2000-2001 school year and extending to the last reported school year of 2007-2008. Much of that rise directly relates to an increase in Hispanic student enrollment by 3 percent at public four-year and beyond colleges and universities. Asian or Pacific Islander students rose 1 percent, while a decrease of 5 percent occurred in white or non-Hispanic students. Enrollment of African-American, and American Indian or Alaskan Native students did not change.

However, the CollegeInSight report on the 2007-2008 school year was significant because that year, the forecasted revenues for states came in far below expectations. In 2008, the effects of the “greatest recession since the Great Depression” were first felt. The article, “An Update on State Budget Cuts,” for the Center on Budget and Policies Priorities, written by Nicholas Johnson, Phil Oliff, and Erica Williams, explains that in the spring of 2008, the first displayed revenues came in far lower than projected. States responded by cutting budgets, which continued throughout 2009 and 2010, with the 2011 budget appearing as another lackluster year for revenues. Along with higher education, funding reductions hit K-12 education, elderly and disabled services, healthcare, state employee layoffs or furlough days, and public safety, due to the diminishing sales tax, income tax, and other funding that provides monies to state programs.

Johnson, Oliff, and Williams found that 43 states decreased funding for higher education, and while each state handled the cuts differently, most gave colleges and universities the authority to raise tuition. These states also waived previous tuition caps to permit colleges and universities to raise tuition costs to cover the depleting state funding. In states like Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and New Mexico, the availability of scholarships and grants continue to be reduced — a vital component to promoting racial and ethnic diversity at colleges and universities. From the article, “The Great Recession’s Toll on Higher Education,” from U.S. News & World Report, published September 10, 2010, Kim Clark says that because of a lack of scholarship money, colleges and universities turned away qualified students, and California is actually limiting the number of students enrolling at public colleges and universities. It is a fundamental necessity for students from minority groups and/or those who have a lesser advantage to financial resources, to obtain grant and scholarship programs to continue their education, especially with tuition costs maintaining an uphill trend.

The correlation of racial and ethnic diversity with scholarship and grant distribution is evident by looking at the U.S. Department of Education’s, “Digest of Education Statistics.” While CollegeInSight reports that white, non-Hispanic, enrollment consists of 64 percent of total student population, “Digest of Education Statistics,” finds that 63.5 percent of whites received some sort of financial aid in 2007-2008. The highest percentage of financial aid at 76.2 percent went to African-Americans, with American Indian or Alaskan Natives receiving 70.8 percent, and Hispanics receiving 69 percent. Only the Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander at 61.5 percent, and Asian students at 53.4 percent, received less financial aid than students who are white, and non-Hispanic. Without the assistance of financial aid, the disparity gap between white, non-Hispanic, and other ethnic and racial group enrollment is likely to be much greater.

High unemployment and declining higher education monies is igniting a quandary of issues, and even though those who do not have a job would like to continue their education, they face a situation where funding is not available and tuition costs are too high. Thus creating a Catch 22 effect, where the unemployed or under-employed cannot obtain the necessary training to find a job that will support them and their families. Johnson, Oliff, and Williams state that as long as unemployment rates continue to rise, revenues suffer, and add to the persistence of restricting state budgets and decreasing funding for higher education. This cycle continues with more people becoming unemployed, and opportunities diminish because the states collect less funding to promote programs that offer assistance to those disadvantaged groups. These people want to work, but the ever-decreasing revenues reduce their opportunities, and even encourage unemployment because they have no other options. This results in a feeling of powerlessness to obtain employment because of their lack of skills and education.

Clark says, “Even in today’s weak job market, the unemployment rate for college graduates is less than 5 percent, about half the rate for those with only a high school diploma.” State cuts eliminate the potential for people to find employment.

Scholarships and loans enable groups with lesser financial means the ability to obtain the same education as advantaged groups who can finance their education without supplementary assistance.

Also notable from the “Digest of Education Statistics” table, is the distribution of financial aid to families within different wage classifications, which is just as imperative to higher education as ethnic and racial group enrollment. Whether a dependent or independent student, the lesser the family income, the more financial aid available. The total number of dependent students (with a family income of up to $20 thousand) who receive financial aid is 80.7 percent. Independent students (who make less than $10 thousand annually) total 74.0 percent, and those making $10 thousand to $19,999 total 71.5 percent. In comparison, dependent students with a family income of $100 thousand or more total 56.4 percent who receive financial aid, and independent students, who receive financial aid (earning $50 thousand or more) totals 49.7 percent.

Along with enriching the racial and ethnic diversity of enrollment of higher education, the diversity of incomes supplies disadvantaged students with more possibilities for good jobs that would likely be unattainable with only a high school diploma. Clark’s findings indicate that college graduates’ unemployment rate, almost half the rest of the nation’s unemployment rate, (lingering at just over 9 percent), is evidence of the value of a higher education. The chance of a job is much more likely for people with a college education because the prospect for employment will persist for those with precise skill sets, meaning that individuals with just a high school diploma will continue to experience high unemployment rates.

The concept of standardized testing is also problematic in deciding enrollment in relation to enhancing higher education diversity. Enrollment founded on standardized testing scores inherently benefits those students from better educational backgrounds. An individual with families able to afford private K-12 education and tutoring are at an advantage to perform better in standardized testing. In contrast, disadvantaged students who attend public schools that provide a bare minimum of education, while continuing to allow students to graduate, do not equally equip these students for the same standardized testing.

According to the article, “Standardized Testing,” published by What is Life (a life science educational forum), Lukas K. Buehler says, “Merit is a reflection of an individual’s academic achievement, and this achievement is based on socioeconomic circumstances, i.e., the rich and the poor.” He adds that standardized tests assess a student’s past education knowledge, not their future aptitude. Standardized testing measures a student’s previous education, which in many cases, has a direct link to the financing available for the student’s learning throughout their primary school years. A student relying on a basic education is much more likely to score lower, which is the beginning of distancing a student from furthering his or her education. Disadvantaged students do not receive equal schooling opportunities, and standardized testing assumes all students received the same educational background.

So why is racial and ethnic diversity important in higher education? It provides a chance for individuals from populations who never would have attended a college or university to better their education and career paths. It is also important to the psyche of those individuals, and to the populations they represent. From the court case Grutter, the University of Michigan’s admission goal to promote educational diversity was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court case occurred in 1997 when Barbara Grutter was denied acceptance from the University of Michigan Law School with a LSAT score of 161 and a 3.8 undergraduate GPA. Known as Grutter v. Bollinger, Grutter, a white Michigan resident, argued against the University of Michigan’s admission of also looking at a student’s race in the admissions process to increase the diversity of the student population.

The district court disagreed with the University of Michigan. The school then filed an appeal in December 2001 to the Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the University of Michigan because applications were highly individualized and not based solely on race. The appeal argued that higher education supplies students with the vital skills of analysis where they test preconceptions, and dismisses erroneous beliefs through a logical examination.

A student is then able to breakdown obstacles through analysis. The Grutter court case appeal determines, “Student diversity helps to achieve each: To enable students to lead ‘the examined life;’ to prepare them to maintain the robust democracy that is their inheritance; and to give them tools with which to sustain the nation’s economic health.” The Supreme Court agreed, and shortly after, an increase in Hispanic and Asian, or Pacific Islander enrollment ensued, which contributed to colleges and universities opening up their institutions to a more diverse student body.

Along with bestowing populations who normally would not have had the possibility of attending a college or university, the Grutter court case helped designate how colleges and universities benefit from ethnic and racial diversity.

CollegeBoard’s “Diversity in Higher Education,” authored by Arthur L. Coleman, Scott R. Palmer, and Nixon Peabody, was created as a manual to help instruct college and university authorities on the information in the Grutter court case. The manual explains, “The Court finds that diverse learning environments can enhance ‘cross-racial understanding, break down racial stereotypes, improve learning outcomes, and better prepare students for a diverse workforce and society.”

Racial and ethnic diversity supplies a dynamic to higher education, which is not easily attained through just a scholarly examination of texts. The hands-on relationship of differing ethnic and racial groups intermingling on campus encourages a vibrancy to education outside the college and university classroom. Students learn from their peers and about themselves on dissimilar beliefs, invigorating a larger environment of study from diverse ideologies, and their own previously unquestioned thoughts.

The final effect of the state budget cuts on higher education is something only time can reveal, however, with federal government stimulus monies from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, (ARRA), Johnson, Oliff, and Williams estimate that $140 billion of this funding covers 30, of the 40 percent total in state budget cuts. This funding, allocated for two and a half years, allows approximately 20 percent of federal dollars to fund the anticipated state cuts in 2011. With the past two years revealing tuition increases, decreases in scholarships and grants, a cap on student enrollment in some states; the consequences to a decrease in higher education are just beginning to transpire.

One apparent outcome of continued state cuts to higher education is additional reductions to programs that encourage racial and ethnic diversity because only students with financial means and high testing scores will be able to afford to continue their education. Those students who cannot afford higher tuitions, face fewer scholarship and grant opportunities, and live in states that limit their ability for acceptance, will not have the resources to attend a university or college. The majority of students, as indicated on CollegeInSight and the “Digest of Education Statistics,” with the ability to attend a college or university remain white, and non-Hispanic.

Without ethnic and racial diversity programs, the higher education learning experience is limited because those attending will study about other ideas, racial and ethnic cultures in texts, but not face-to-face. The faces of those privileged students, similar in likeness, supply few new ideas because they share the same experiences. Thus, colleges and universities will become restricted because they will only offer a condensed version of learning that allows only those with the financial advantages to reap those incomplete rewards of higher education.

Sources:
Buehler, Lukas K. “Standardized Testing.” What is Life, 2008, http://www.whatislife.com/education/teaching-standards.html
Clark, Kim. “The Great Recession’s Toll on Higher Education: The tight economy has forced many students to fight for an
affordable, quality education,” U.S. News & World Report, (September 10, 2010), http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2010/09/10/the-gr...
Coleman, Arthur L., Scott R. Palmer, and Nixon Peabody. “Diversity in Higher Education: A Strategic Planning and Policy
Manual Regarding Federal Law in Admissions, Financial Aid and Outreach”, CollegeBoard, 2nd ed., 2004,
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ad/diversity_manual_...
CollegeInSight, “Racial and Ethnic Diversity—Students,” http://college-insight.org/#topics/go&h=8edaeeaaba1f64cb787ebc3bb61fb68e
Johnson, Nicholas, Phil Oliff, and Erica Williams. “An Update on State Budget Cuts: At Least 46 States Have Imposed Cuts
That Hurt Vulnerable Residents and the Economy,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, (August 4, 2010),
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1214
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger et al., (December 2001),
http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&section=Legal_Issue...
U.S. Department of Education, “Digest of Education Statistics,” Table 338, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_338.asp
U.S. Supreme Court Media OYEZ, “Grutter v. Bollinger,” http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/