HBCU’s

Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's, Higher Education

The SACSCOC’s Extension of Virginia Union University’s Probation: A Critical Analysi

Introduction

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) recently made a decision that has raised eyebrows in the academic community: extending the probationary period for Virginia Union University (VUU). This decision, rather than addressing the core issues plaguing the institution, seems to be a mere bandage on a gaping wound. In this article, we will delve deep into why this extension is not only inadequate but potentially harmful to the standards of higher education. We will examine how VUU’s persistent failures in crucial areas such as financial resources, financial responsibility, control of finances, and federal and state responsibilities warrant a more decisive action: the revocation of its accreditation.

Background: Virginia Union University and SACSCOC

Virginia Union University: A Brief Overview

Virginia Union University, founded in 1865, is a historically black university located in Richmond, Virginia. With a rich history spanning over 150 years, VUU has played a significant role in providing higher education opportunities to African American students. However, recent years have seen the institution grappling with serious administrative and financial challenges that threaten its very foundation.

The Role of SACSCOC

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges is the regional body for the accreditation of degree-granting higher education institutions in the Southern states. Its mission is to assure the educational quality and improve the effectiveness of its member institutions. Accreditation by SACSCOC is a crucial indicator of an institution’s adherence to high academic standards and sound administrative practices.

The Probation Extension: A Closer Look

Timeline of Events

  1. Initial Probation: VUU was initially placed on probation by SACSCOC due to non-compliance with several key standards.
  2. Review Period: The university was given time to address these issues and demonstrate improvement.
  3. Recent Decision: Instead of lifting the probation or taking more stringent action, SACSCOC opted to extend the probationary period.

Areas of Non-Compliance

The extension of probation stems from VUU’s failure to comply with regulations in four critical areas:

  1. Financial Resources
  2. Financial Responsibility
  3. Control of Finances
  4. Federal and State Responsibilities

Each of these areas represents a fundamental aspect of institutional management and stability. The fact that VUU has failed to address these issues satisfactorily over an extended period is deeply concerning.

Analyzing the Failures

1. Financial Resources

The inability of VUU to demonstrate adequate financial resources is a red flag that cannot be ignored. Higher education institutions require stable and sufficient financial backing to:

  • Maintain and improve academic programs
  • Attract and retain quality faculty
  • Provide necessary student services
  • Maintain and upgrade facilities
  • Invest in research and development

VUU’s shortcomings in this area suggest a precarious financial situation that could jeopardize the quality of education it provides. This failure raises questions about:

  • The institution’s long-term viability
  • Its ability to fulfill commitments to current and prospective students
  • The potential mismanagement of funds or lack of financial planning

2. Financial Responsibility

Financial responsibility goes beyond mere resource availability. It encompasses:

  • Prudent financial management
  • Transparent accounting practices
  • Responsible allocation of resources
  • Adherence to budgetary constraints

VUU’s non-compliance in this area suggests systemic issues in how the institution manages its finances. This could manifest in various ways:

  • Overspending in certain areas while neglecting others
  • Lack of proper financial controls
  • Inadequate financial reporting and transparency
  • Poor long-term financial planning

The implications of such irresponsibility are far-reaching, potentially affecting every aspect of the university’s operations and its ability to fulfill its educational mission.

3. Control of Finances

Control of finances is a critical aspect of institutional governance. It involves:

  • Clear financial policies and procedures
  • Effective oversight mechanisms
  • Proper segregation of financial duties
  • Regular audits and financial reviews

VUU’s failure in this area points to potential governance issues that could leave the institution vulnerable to:

  • Financial mismanagement
  • Fraud or embezzlement
  • Inability to respond to financial crises
  • Loss of donor and stakeholder confidence

The lack of proper financial control not only puts the institution at risk but also raises questions about the competence and integrity of its leadership.

4. Federal and State Responsibilities

Higher education institutions have numerous obligations to federal and state authorities, including:

  • Compliance with educational regulations
  • Proper administration of financial aid programs
  • Adherence to reporting requirements
  • Maintenance of academic standards

VUU’s non-compliance in this area is particularly troubling as it suggests:

  • Potential misuse or mismanagement of government funds
  • Failure to meet basic regulatory requirements
  • Risk to students’ financial aid and academic credentials
  • Possible legal and financial liabilities for the institution

This failure not only puts the university at risk but also potentially harms its students and undermines the integrity of the higher education system as a whole.

The Inadequacy of Probation Extension

A Pattern of Failure

The decision by SACSCOC to extend VUU’s probation rather than revoke its accreditation is problematic for several reasons:

  1. Prolonged Non-Compliance: The extension suggests that VUU has been non-compliant for an extended period, yet has been allowed to continue operating without meeting basic standards.
  2. Lack of Improvement: The need for an extension indicates that VUU has not made sufficient progress in addressing its issues, despite being aware of them and having time to correct them.
  3. Lowered Standards: By allowing continued operation under these circumstances, SACSCOC risks setting a precedent that undermines the very standards it seeks to uphold.
  4. Risk to Students: Current and prospective students are left in a state of uncertainty, potentially investing time and money in an institution that may lose accreditation.
  5. Misplaced Leniency: The decision may be perceived as undue leniency, possibly influenced by factors other than objective assessment of compliance.

The Case for Accreditation Revocation

Given the severity and persistence of VUU’s non-compliance, a strong argument can be made for revoking its accreditation:

  1. Upholding Standards: Revocation would send a clear message about the importance of maintaining high standards in higher education.
  2. Protecting Students: It would prevent further enrollment of students in an institution that has consistently failed to meet basic operational standards.
  3. Accountability: Revocation would hold VUU’s leadership accountable for their failure to address critical issues over an extended period.
  4. Integrity of Accreditation: It would reinforce the credibility and importance of accreditation as a meaningful measure of institutional quality.
  5. Catalyst for Change: The threat of revocation might be the only effective motivator for VUU to implement radical and necessary changes.

Implications of Continued Accreditation

For Students

  1. Quality of Education: Students at VUU may be receiving an education that does not meet the standards expected of an accredited institution.
  2. Financial Risk: With questionable financial management, there’s a risk of program cuts or even institutional closure, leaving students stranded.
  3. Credential Value: The value of degrees from an institution under prolonged probation may be diminished in the eyes of employers and graduate schools.
  4. Financial Aid Uncertainty: Continued accreditation issues could jeopardize students’ access to federal financial aid.

For Faculty and Staff

  1. Job Security: Financial instability puts faculty and staff positions at risk.
  2. Professional Development: Lack of resources may limit opportunities for professional growth and research.
  3. Morale: Working in an institution under prolonged probation can negatively impact morale and job satisfaction.

For the Higher Education Landscape

  1. Lowered Standards: Allowing VUU to continue operating sends a message that non-compliance with crucial standards is acceptable.
  2. Undermined Accreditation Process: The credibility of SACSCOC and the accreditation process itself is called into question.
  3. Unfair Competition: VUU continues to compete for students and resources with institutions that do meet accreditation standards.
  4. Public Trust: Continued accreditation of non-compliant institutions erodes public trust in the higher education system.

The Broader Context: Challenges in Higher Education

Financial Pressures on Institutions

VUU’s struggles are not occurring in isolation. Many higher education institutions, particularly smaller private colleges and HBCUs, face significant financial pressures:

  1. Declining Enrollments: Demographic shifts and increased competition have led to enrollment challenges for many institutions.
  2. Rising Costs: The cost of providing quality education continues to increase, straining institutional budgets.
  3. Reduced Public Funding: Many institutions have seen reductions in state and federal support.
  4. Endowment Challenges: Smaller institutions often struggle to build and maintain substantial endowments.

The Role of Accrediting Bodies

Accrediting bodies like SACSCOC play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of higher education. However, their effectiveness is sometimes questioned:

  1. Balancing Act: They must balance maintaining high standards with the potential consequences of revoking accreditation.
  2. Pressure from Stakeholders: Accrediting bodies may face pressure from various stakeholders to show leniency.
  3. Resource Limitations: Accreditors may have limited resources to conduct thorough, frequent reviews.
  4. Evolving Standards: The challenge of adapting accreditation standards to a rapidly changing educational landscape.

Potential Solutions and Path Forward

For Virginia Union University

  1. Leadership Overhaul: Bring in new leadership with a proven track record in financial management and institutional turnaround.
  2. Financial Restructuring: Implement a comprehensive financial restructuring plan, possibly with external assistance.
  3. Transparency Initiatives: Increase financial transparency to rebuild trust with stakeholders.
  4. Strategic Partnerships: Explore partnerships with other institutions or organizations to strengthen financial position.
  5. Program Evaluation: Conduct a thorough review of academic programs, focusing resources on areas of strength and demand.

For SACSCOC

  1. Stricter Enforcement: Implement more stringent enforcement of accreditation standards, including quicker action on non-compliant institutions.
  2. Enhanced Monitoring: Develop more robust, continuous monitoring processes for institutions on probation.
  3. Public Reporting: Increase transparency in the accreditation process, including more detailed public reporting on institutional status.
  4. Collaborative Approach: Work more closely with struggling institutions, providing guidance and resources for improvement.

For the Higher Education Sector

  1. Funding Reform: Advocate for reforms in higher education funding to address systemic financial challenges.
  2. Accreditation Innovation: Explore new models of accreditation that can more effectively ensure quality while adapting to changing educational landscapes.
  3. Institutional Collaboration: Encourage more collaboration between institutions to share resources and best practices.
  4. Focus on Outcomes: Shift towards more outcomes-based evaluation of institutional effectiveness.

Conclusion

The decision by SACSCOC to extend Virginia Union University’s probationary period, rather than revoke its accreditation, represents a missed opportunity to uphold the high standards that should define higher education. VUU’s persistent failures in critical areas of financial management and regulatory compliance are not mere technicalities; they strike at the heart of what it means to be a responsibly managed, academically sound institution.

The implications of this decision extend far beyond the campus of VUU. It sets a troubling precedent that may embolden other struggling institutions to believe that continued non-compliance with fundamental standards is acceptable. More importantly, it puts the interests of the institution above those of its students, who deserve an education from a financially stable and well-managed university.

While the challenges facing many higher education institutions, particularly HBCUs, are real and significant, they cannot serve as an excuse for prolonged failure to meet basic standards of financial responsibility and regulatory compliance. The accreditation process must maintain its integrity as a meaningful measure of institutional quality and stability.

The path forward requires bold action. For VUU, this means a fundamental overhaul of its financial management and governance structures. For SACSCOC and other accrediting bodies, it calls for a reexamination of how they balance their role in institutional improvement with their responsibility to maintain standards.

Ultimately, the goal of accreditation should be to ensure that institutions of higher learning are capable of fulfilling their sacred trust: providing students with a quality education that prepares them for future success. When an institution repeatedly demonstrates that it cannot meet this basic obligation, the appropriate response is not continued probation, but a more decisive action that protects the interests of students and preserves the integrity of higher education as a whole.

The case of Virginia Union University serves as a stark reminder that accreditation must be more than a formality. It should be a robust, meaningful process that genuinely distinguishes institutions that meet high standards from those that do not. Only by maintaining and enforcing these standards can we ensure that higher education continues to serve as a pathway to opportunity and advancement for all students.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's

Why Are HBCUs Failing Behind in Tech?

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are institutions of higher learning that were established to provide African Americans with the quality education they were denied due to racial segregation. However, despite their rich history and contributions to academia, HBCUs face a major challenge in the modern world: keeping pace with technological advancements.

In this article, we will address the possible reasons why HBCUs are falling behind in technology and offer potential solutions to bridge the gap.

Factors Contributing to HBCU’s Struggle in Technology:

1. Funding Disparity: One of the most significant factors limiting HBCU’s progress in technology is the lack of adequate funding. According to a recent study, predominantly white institutions (PWIs) receive around three times more federal research funding than HBCUs. A smaller budget translates to fewer resources for investments in technology, including hardware, software, training faculty members, and hiring tech-focused staff.

2. Limited Infrastructure: Along with inadequate funding, many HBCUs tend to have older infrastructure that can hinder the implementation of cutting-edge technology. Upgrading or integrating new tech can be costly and disruptive, making it difficult for these schools to remain competitive with PWIs.

3. Lack of Industry Partnerships: Collaborations between academic institutions and the tech industry play a crucial role in fostering innovation. While PWIs often engage with leading tech firms for research projects or internships, HBCUs may have fewer opportunities due to limited connections with those companies.

4. Underrepresentation in STEM Fields: Disparities in enrollment and graduation rates contribute to the underrepresentation of African American students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Lower STEM participation rates may impact an HBCU’s ability to attract talented students interested in pursuing technology-related careers.

Potential Solutions:

1. Increase Federal Funding: Lobbying for increased federal funding could help HBCUs build better technological infrastructure, support faculty development, and attract more students. Closing the funding gap would put HBCUs in a better position to compete on a level playing field.

2. Strengthen Industry Partnerships: Fostering stronger relationships with key technology companies could provide resources, internships, and job opportunities for HBCU students. Exposure to real-world tech applications would help students gain practical experience while enhancing research and academic programs.

3. Encourage STEM Education: HBCUs can take steps like providing scholarships and hosting STEM-related events to attract talented students interested in tech fields. By fostering an inclusive environment with ample opportunities for growth, HBCUs can increase representation in STEM fields.

4. Investment in Technology Infrastructure: Obtaining grants and private donations can help HBCUs invest in updating their technology infrastructure, including modernizing classrooms and installing industry-standard software.

Conclusion:

While HBCUs face numerous challenges in adapting to the rapidly evolving technology landscape, these historical institutions have proven time and again that they can adapt and overcome obstacles when provided the necessary resources. By addressing funding disparities, fostering industry partnerships, encouraging STEM education, and investing in updated infrastructure, HBCUs can continue to produce skilled graduates who contribute significantly to the global workforce in today’s digital age.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's

Is It Ok For HBCUs to Have Low Graduation Rates?

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have played a vital role in providing education to the Black community for more than a century. These institutions are known for producing some of the most influential figures in American history. However, HBCUs are currently experiencing a problem that raises a critical question: Is it acceptable for these schools to have low graduation rates?

To answer this question, we must first understand the factors contributing to low graduation rates at HBCUs. Some of these factors include inadequate funding, limited resources, and reduced enrollment numbers. Additionally, many students attending HBCUs come from diverse backgrounds and face various personal challenges that may affect their academic achievement. While these issues undoubtedly pose significant obstacles to achieving higher graduation rates, it is crucial to determine whether this outcome is acceptable.

One argument supporting the idea that low graduation rates at HBCUs are justifiable emphasizes the unique characteristics and missions of these institutions. Historically, HBCUs have placed great importance on providing access and opportunities to underprivileged students who may not have had the chance to attend college otherwise. In doing so, HBCUs willingly acknowledge that it may be difficult for them to achieve high graduation rates while still fulfilling their mission of providing a quality education for students in need.

Furthermore, evaluating an institution’s success based solely on its graduation rate can be shortsighted. For instance, HBCUs are recognized for nurturing essential life and career skills in students, attributes that may not necessarily translate into higher graduation rates but can nonetheless positively impact their lives. Moreover, an HBCU’s contribution goes far beyond its graduation rate by helping shape leaders in various fields such as activism, civil rights, literature, and STEM.

While these counterarguments shed light on some of the reasons why low graduation rates at HBCUs may be understandable, it is imperative not to overlook the potential consequences. Low graduation rates are often associated with a lack of funding and resources, which may consequently impact an institution’s ability to provide the best possible education to its students. Moreover, students with college degrees generally enjoy better career prospects and higher lifetime earnings, making it crucial for HBCUs to make concerted efforts to improve their students’ chances of graduating.

In conclusion, the issue of low graduation rates at HBCUs is complex and multifaceted. These institutions have a unique mission of serving underprivileged students while striving for academic success, and evaluating them solely based on graduation rates may be unfair. However, stakeholders, including administrators, students, government agencies, and donors, must work collaboratively to address the underlying factors contributing to low graduation rates and ensure these institutions can continue serving their mission while providing quality education for future generations.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's

How many HBCUs are there?

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are a crucial part of the higher education system in the United States. These universities were initially established to provide educational opportunities for African American students who were previously barred from attending white institutions due to segregation and discrimination. But, how many HBU’s are there?

Currently, there are 101 HBCUs in the United States, including public and private institutions. Of these HBCUs, 51 are public universities, and the remaining 50 are private institutions. These universities are spread across 19 states, primarily in the southern and eastern regions of the country.

The first HBCU in the United States was Cheyney University, founded in 1837. Since then, these institutions have played a significant role in educating African American students and promoting social justice in the United States.

In addition to providing educational opportunities for African American students, HBCUs play a crucial role in supporting low-income and first-generation students. They also serve as a safe and inclusive environment for students who may not feel as welcome at predominantly white institutions.

HBCUs offer a wide range of degree programs, from undergraduate to graduate level, and include fields such as business, law, medicine, education, and engineering. These institutions also provide various resources and support services for their students, such as tutoring, mentoring, and internships.

Although HBCUs have faced challenges in recent years, such as declining enrollment and financial struggles, these institutions are still essential in promoting diversity and equality in higher education. They continue to play a crucial role in ensuring that African American students have access to quality education and the tools they need to succeed.

In conclusion, there are currently 101 HBCUs in the United States, providing educational opportunities for African American students and promoting social justice in the country. These institutions are essential in promoting diversity and equality in higher education and are crucial to ensuring that all students have access to quality education. 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's

Environmental Racism’s Affect on HBCUs

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have been serving the African American community for over a century. However, just like many other educational institutions, HBCUs are facing a variety of challenges that are hindering their progress. One of the most profound challenges is environmental racism.

Environmental racism is the practice of situating toxic waste sites, landfills, and other environmental hazards in low-income communities and communities of color. This practice is rooted in social, economic, and racial inequality, and it has devastating effects on the health and well-being of affected communities.

HBCUs, which are predominantly attended by people of color, often find themselves situated in areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental racism. These institutions are usually located in low-income areas where pollution levels are high, and access to clean air and water is limited. As a result, HBCUs are feeling the brunt of environmental racism in several ways.

One of the critical ways that environmental racism affects HBCUs is the impact on the health of their students and faculty. For example, many HBCUs are located near industrial plants that emit dangerous toxins into the air and water. These pollutants can damage organs, compromise immunity, and lead to chronic illnesses such as asthma and cancer. Such health impacts can lead to health risks and even death, especially for vulnerable populations, including the elderly, the children, pregnant women, and people with underlying health issues.

Moreover, the air pollution resulting from environmental racism not only affects the health of individuals but also has adverse effects on the environment. HBCUs are known for their significant contributions to environmental education and research. But, their efforts to advance environmental stewardship are frequently impeded by hazardous waste, contaminated air, and water, a situation that precludes them from providing a healthy and safe academic life.

Lastly, environmental racism has also had a significant impact on the operations and finances of HBCUs. As a result of environmental contamination, affected schools need to spend significant amounts of their resources on environmental remediation, cleanup, and mitigation measures. Such costs can put a strain on the financial resources that these schools need to meet their core obligations, including paying for educational programs and funding student scholarships.

In conclusion, environmental racism is an insidious and destructive force that is impacting HBCUs and their communities. The students, faculty, and leadership at these institutions are among the many casualties of environmental injustice. Therefore, addressing environmental racism needs to be a priority for both policymakers and individuals alike. It is only by creating awareness and taking concerted steps to fight environmental racism that we can begin to secure the future of HBCUs and the communities they serve.   

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's

The Economic Impact of HBCUs

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are educational institutions that were established before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide education to African American students who had limited educational opportunities. Today, HBCUs continue to play a significant role in the educational and economic development of African American communities and the country as a whole. In this article, we will examine the economic impact of HBCUs on their surrounding communities, the state, and the nation.

Creating Job Opportunities

HBCUs are major employers in their local communities, creating jobs for thousands of people. These jobs range from administrative positions to maintenance and security staff, teaching and research faculty, and support staff such as librarians, cafeteria workers, and custodians. According to a recent study by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, HBCUs provide direct and indirect employment to over 137,000 individuals and generate over $14.8 billion in total economic impact.

Attracting Investment

HBCUs help to attract investment to their surrounding areas by providing a skilled and educated workforce that can meet the needs of businesses and industries. Graduate and undergraduate students who attend HBCUs often establish ties with local business and civic leaders as they participate in internships, service learning projects, and community service events. They serve as ambassadors for their institutions and contribute to the positive image of their communities. This can help to attract outside investment and business partnerships that can create jobs and stimulate economic growth.

Increasing Local Revenue

HBCUs also contribute significantly to the local economy by generating revenue from student tuition and fees, research projects, grants, and contracts. Students and faculty members also spend money in the local communities, supporting businesses such as restaurants, hotels, and shops. This increased economic activity leads to an increase in local tax revenue, which can be used to fund vital community services such as schools, hospitals, and public safety.

Providing Entrepreneurial Opportunities

HBCUs help to develop and support entrepreneurship by providing students and alumni with the tools and resources to start and sustain their own businesses. According to a report by the HBCU Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Initiative, HBCUs have produced over 50,000 entrepreneurs who have created thousands of jobs in their communities. These entrepreneurs have started businesses in various sectors, including technology, health care, finance, and education.

Conclusion

HBCUs are not only valuable educational institutions but also economic engines that contribute greatly to their local communities, states, and the nation as a whole. They provide job opportunities, attract investment, increase local revenue, and support entrepreneurship. As we continue to address income inequality, racial disparities, and economic development, HBCUs will undoubtedly play an integral role in ensuring that all individuals have access to quality education and economic opportunities.     

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Assessment, Assistive Technology, Black Boys in Crisis, Child Development Tech,

The Edvocate Podcast, Episode 6: 8 Ways That Digital Age Teachers Avoid Burning Out

Being a teacher is a tough job. So much so, many new teachers end up leaving the field within their first three years. To ensure that the next generation of students have qualified teachers, we must nip this phenomenon in the bud. In this episode, we will discuss 8 ways that digital age teachers avoid burning out.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's, Higher Education

Explainer: how campus policies limit free speech

David Hudson, Vanderbilt University

Colleges and universities are supposed to be places where freedom of expression flourishes. Sadly, that is not the case. At a recent debate on the Yale University campus, 66 percent of the attendees supported a proposition that “free speech is threatened.”

Places of higher learning seem more interested in “safe spaces” rather than in freedom of expression. Several incidents across campuses illustrate this. Recently, at Emory, students complained after they found chalk messages scrawled around campus voicing support for Donald J. Trump.

Last year at the University of Ottawa, a yoga class designed for handicapped people was suspended because the student federation thought it was a form of “cultural appropriation.” And at Smith College a student sit-in blocked media from entering unless reporters agreed to explicitly state support for the movement in their coverage.

Illustrating how contentious the debates have become, two of the most respected American comedians, Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld, said that colleges are eager “not to offend anybody.” Some students at a private Ivy League school even signed a petition to repeal the First Amendment.

Ideally, colleges and universities would foster an exchange of competing and controversial ideas. The reality is much different. Some colleges and universities limit discourse by silencing speech that might offend others through so-called speech codes and free speech zones.

In studying free expression issues for more than 20 years, I strongly believe such polices have led to a chilling effect on speech. They also have led to a mentality where students do not wish or want to face an opposing viewpoint.

So, what are these policies?

Combating hateful speech

First, let’s look at speech codes on campuses. A speech code refers to a set of provisions or regulations that limit certain types of offensive or harassing speech.

Colleges and universities usually don’t call their regulations speech codes. Instead, they refer to them as anti-harassment policies.

It was in the 1980s and 1990s that more than 300 colleges passed these policies to combat hateful speech. Schools tried to address harassment of gays and lesbians, women and members of other ethnic groups. The policies were further enforced when white students wore blackface for sorority and fraternity parties. Many schools were trying to achieve more diversity in their student bodies.

The intent was good. Many of these policies sought to prohibit speech or conduct that created an intimidating or harassing environment on the basis of race, sex, religion, or other criteria.

However, the results were not good for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.
Policies at the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin were invalidated on First Amendment free speech grounds.

At the University of Wisconsin, speech codes were adopted following racial incidents. JanetandPhil, CC BY-NC-ND

At the University of Wisconsin, for example, university officials adopted the speech code after several racially insensitive displays at fraternities. For example, one fraternity held a “slave auction.” A student newspaper and several others challenged the policy on the ground that the policies infringed on academic freedom and stifled some legitimate speech. In UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), a federal district court struck down the policy, writing:

The suppression of speech, even where the speech’s content appears to have little value and great costs, amounts to governmental thought control.

Similar problems occurred at Michigan, which had its share of disturbing racially charged incidents. At Michigan, a student disc jockey allowed racist jokes to be aired. University officials reacted with a speech code. The problem was that officials applied the policy to chill the speech of students engaged in classroom discussion or academic research.

A federal district court judge invalidated the policy in Doe v. University of Michigan (1989), writing:

While the Court is sympathetic to the University’s obligation to ensure equal educational opportunities for all of its students, such efforts must not be at the expense of free speech.

The problem was that these codes were not drafted with sufficient precision. Courts ruled that these polices were either too broad or too vague.

Overbreadth and vagueness problems

A policy is too broad if it prohibits speech that ought to be protected in addition to speech that can be prohibited. In legal terms, this is called “overbreadth”. For example, a policy that prohibits “offensive and annoying” speech sweeps too broadly and prohibits lawful expression.

A policy is too vague if a person has to guess at its meaning. Vagueness is rooted in the notion that it is fundamentally unfair to punish someone when they did not know that their speech violated the policy.

For example, the University of Michigan had a policy that prohibited “stigmatizing or victimizing” individuals or groups on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap or Vietnam-era veteran status.

In Doe v. University of Michigan, a federal district court judge ruled the policy too vague, writing:

Students of common understanding were necessarily forced to guess at whether a comment about a controversial issue would later be found to be sanctionable under the Policy.

Controversies still abound over speech codes at colleges and universities. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) regularly challenges policies that it believes run afoul of the First Amendment.

In its annual report, the group contends that nearly half of the speech codes at 440 colleges infringe on First Amendment free speech rights. FIRE contends in its report that “any speech code in force at a public university is extremely vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.”

Restricting where students can have free speech

In addition, many colleges and universities have free speech zones. Under these policies, people can speak at places of higher learning in only certain, specific locations or zones.

Free speech zones limit expression to a few places on campus. Penn State, CC BY-NC

While there are remnants of these policies from the 1960s, they grew in number in the late 1990s and early 2000s as a way for administrators to deal with controversial expression.

These policies may have a seductive appeal for administrators, as they claim to advance the cause of free speech. But, free speech zones often limit speech by relegating expression to just a few locations. For example, some colleges began by having only two or three free speech zones on campus.

The idea of zoning speech is not unique to colleges and universities. Government officials have sought to diminish the impact of different types of expression by zoning adult-oriented expression, antiabortion protestors and political demonstrators outside political conventions.

In a particularly egregious example, a student at Modesto Junior College in California named Robert Van Tuinen was prohibited from handing out copies of the United States Constitution on September 17, 2013 – the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution.

Van Tuinen was informed that he could get permission to distribute the Constitution if he preregistered for time in the “free speech zone.” But later,
Van Tuinen was told by an administrator that he would have to wait, possibly until the next month.

In the words of First Amendment expert Charles Haynes, “the entire campus should be a free speech zone.” In other words, the default position of school administrators should be to allow speech, not limit it.

Zoning speech is troubling, particularly when it reduces the overall amount of speech on campus. And many free speech experts view the idea of a free speech zone as “moronic and oxymoronic.”

College or university campuses should be a place where free speech not only survives but thrives.

The Conversation

David Hudson, Adjunct Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's, Higher Education

Most students borrow for college, but are they financially literate?

Catherine Montalto, The Ohio State University and Anne McDaniel, The Ohio State University

August is here, and many families are preparing their children for the next academic challenge – a college education.

By and large, a college degree is viewed as an important credential for gainful employment and professional success. At the same time, college is costly, and college financing strategies are complex.

Students and their families use multiple sources to finance college expenses. Most students borrow for their education. Three out of five college students depend on student loans to fund their education.

But, do students know the ABCs of financial literacy?

College finance options

The college process begins with estimating the full cost of college attendance. This includes tuition, housing and living expenses, such as food, books, cellphone plans and transportation.

The next step is to identify all resources available to pay college expenses, including the expected family contribution, scholarships and grants, college savings and wages from employment – if students plan to work.

Once college costs and available resources are carefully estimated, any shortfall in resources informs the need for borrowing. Scholarships and grants are awarded without strings attached. However, student loans come with an obligation to repay the borrowed amount once the recipient is no longer enrolled full-time.

Guidelines for responsible student loan use recommend minimizing the loan amount in order to have less debt to be repaid.

Decisions made by college students and their families regarding loans have direct and significant consequences during adulthood.

The inability to manage student loan repayment along with other financial obligations (i.e., housing, food, utilities, transportation) has been shown to impact career choice, home ownership, marriage, additional education, financial health and overall quality of life.

So, how do students decide the amount to borrow? What rules of thumb or strategies are used? How is use of these strategies related to financial knowledge?

How students make borrowing decisions

We lead the Study on Collegiate Financial Wellness (SCFW), which surveys a random sample of undergraduate students in order to understand their financial behaviors, decisions and wellness. Data from our study provide insights to these questions.

The 2014 SCFW study, with the most recent information from nearly 19,000 college students studying at 51 public and private four-year and two-year institutions, found that the majority of college students with student loans use one or more strategies to minimize the amount borrowed.

How are students making borrowing decisions? Application image via www.shutterstock.com

For example, data from our study showed over half of student loan users tried to borrow as little as possible (52 percent).

Additionally, 38 percent considered the total amount of debt that they expected to graduate with. Thirty-three percent considered the amount that had borrowed in the past when deciding how much to borrow for the school year.

But about 28 percent, almost three out of 10 students, reported borrowing the maximum amount available in their package. And about 17 percent of student loan users borrowed the maximum available without also employing a strategy to minimize overall borrowing.

Low financial knowledge

The next question is, how well are students prepared to make these important decisions?

The SCFW included two financial knowledge questions to test whether respondents could understand the concepts of interest and inflation and had basic financial numeracy. These questions assess basic concepts of financial literacy – the knowledge and skill needed to manage financial resources effectively.

Nearly 80 percent of the college student respondents answered the interest rate question correctly. But only 59 percent answered the inflation question correctly. Just over half of the college students (53 percent) answered both questions correctly.

Students who answered the interest rate question incorrectly don’t understand that interest is earned not only on money deposited in a savings account, but also on previously earned interest – a feature known as compounding – while students who answered the inflation question incorrectly don’t understand that rising inflation reduces the buying power of money. Interest and inflation both influence how much our hard-earned money can buy.

These results are similar to previous research conducted in 2007-08 with 23-28 years old young adults.

In that study, the percentage of young adults answering correctly was 79 percent for the interest rate question, 54 percent for the inflation question, and 46 percent for both questions.

Knowledge influences borrowing

Some colleges provide either workshops or longer term courses on financial education, but the percentage of college students who receive financial education remains low.

When students know more, they save more. 401(K) 2012, CC BY-SA

Only one-quarter of the SCFW respondents completed a financial education course in college. Those that did were significantly more likely to answer both financial knowledge questions correctly (58 percent vs 51 percent). This difference is too large to attribute to chance alone, and suggests that financial education increases financial knowledge.

Using data from the SCFW on 7,180 students at four-year colleges, we wanted to see if financial knowledge and financial education were associated with strategies used to make borrowing decisions.

We controlled for many factors known to affect student loan borrowing, including student age, sex, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. We found that with higher financial knowledge, students were more likely to borrow what they believed they needed.

We found they budgeted and borrowed as little as possible, when they had financial knowledge.

Knowledge is power

While a college degree certainly pays off in the long run, the payoff can take longer if students have loans to repay.

This fall as students enter or return to college, it is important that they make thoughtful decisions about financing their education. Families making decisions about paying for college may also want to have discussions about how much students understand about finances or look for opportunities to take financial education workshops.

As the saying goes, knowledge is power, even when it comes to finances.

The Conversation

Catherine Montalto, Associate Professor of Consumer Sciences, The Ohio State University and Anne McDaniel, Senior Associate Director, The Ohio State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share