View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Political Rancor and Educational Inequality: Why Building Consensus Is Necessary to Renew American Higher Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Political Rancor and Educational Inequality: Why Building Consensus Is Necessary to Renew American Higher Education
Language: English
Authors: Cantwell, Brendan, Taylor, Barrett J.
Source: Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 2020 52(3):68-72.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 5
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Political Attitudes, Equal Education, Higher Education, Educational Change, Racial Relations, American Indian Students, African American Students, Low Income Students, Public Schools, Tuition, State Aid, Financial Support, Racial Bias
DOI: 10.1080/00091383.2020.1745607
ISSN: 0009-1383
Abstract: Since the Great Recession, a number of public colleges and universities have become operationally vulnerable. In this article, the authors point to two related processes leading to this crisis in public higher education. The first is the recent deterioration of operational conditions for a number of public colleges and universities. The second process results from hyper-partisan state governments and especially the politics of racial resentment that often motivate electoral participation among White voters. Under hyper-partisan conditions, some state governments have divested from public higher education especially aggressively when the student bodies of public colleges and universities grow more racially diverse than is the state as a whole (Taylor, Cantwell, Watts, & Wood, 2020). They elaborate on the two processes that underlie this state of affairs and offer possibilities for a more just, more equal higher education system
Abstractor: ERIC
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1262256
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHw3KNPLOcu-nljbOzhtgXnAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA_wvSBvU6LHi_AeHgIBEICBm3zYzsWk_yZH_4Bcocz67skw10HMJ3aoc-FjesNEYsdb6Uyl41UUL20WCdBsoAR1dkVR7tt_EHaaGH3SE4awO7LJqpByVQTS5YuS__z2_0k0HIAfWbT3rr3RVObet2kTRj0TPe0eqtBYyry4-As9qTwHclHtEns0YRMWjWtkN9oQGzzbDfX4VXBknHozNvsuxydn0dcSjbQSUoBj
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0144691474;chg01may.20;2020Jul23.04:18;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0144691474-1">Political Rancor and Educational Inequality: Why Building Consensus Is Necessary to Renew American Higher Education </title> <p>In Short</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Since the Great Recession, a number of public colleges and universities have become operationally vulnerable.</item> <p></p> <item> Hyper-partisanship and the politics of White racial resentment have resulted in limited public support for everyone's children to access good-value higher education.</item> <p></p> <item> Low-income students as well as Black and Native American students are disproportionally exposed to eroding value in public higher education.</item> <p></p> <item> To offer more opportunity for individuals to fulfill the promise of higher education, a new social consensus is needed.</item> </ulist> <p>Public colleges and universities face serious challenges. As states divest from higher education and tuition rises, institutions' financial challenges are borne in part by students. In some cases, the challenges are particularly intense. A subset of public colleges and universities now offer poorer value propositions—higher tuition prices and more unequal outcomes—to students than they did before the Great Recession. Students may still have access to higher education. Their opportunity to succeed, however, has been limited because the available seats are not very good values. Prices are high but total educational spending is lower because the state government pays much less than it used to contribute.</p> <p>We point to two related processes leading to this crisis in public higher education. The first is the recent deterioration of operational conditions for a number of public colleges and universities, which we identified in our book <emph>Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status and Student Opportunity</emph> (Taylor & Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref1">28</reflink>]). Declining direct state funding has exposed many public institutions to extreme tuition dependence and budgetary uncertainty. We call this first process <emph>the rising tide of vulnerability in public higher education.</emph></p> <p>The second process results from hyper-partisan state governments and especially the politics of racial resentment that often motivate electoral participation among White voters. Under hyper-partisan conditions, some state governments have divested from public higher education especially aggressively when the student bodies of public colleges and universities grow more racially diverse than is the state as a whole (Taylor, Cantwell, Watts, & Wood, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]). The contours of divestment echo centuries of racist practices (Wilder, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref3">30</reflink>]) and follow longstanding patterns in which White rage is expressed through nominally legitimate institutions such as higher education and state governments (Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]). We call this second process <emph>partisanship and the politics of racial resentment</emph>.</p> <p>These two processes have fundamentally changed the social consensus about the purpose of higher education. Traditionally, higher education was understood to provide both individual mobility and broad public benefits (Labaree, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref5">19</reflink>]). Bitter fights have been waged over who counts as a member of "the public," but the idea that higher education produced both public and private benefits was widespread (e.g., Loss, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]). Public vulnerability and hyper-partisanship indicate that this social consensus supporting higher education is fraying. Today, the focus seems to be securing good-value public higher education for one's social and political circle while ignoring what is provided to the public at large.</p> <p>The result is a higher education system that is increasingly unequal and a political situation in which fewer voters and policy makers prioritize educational opportunity for a racially and socioeconomically diverse group of students. We elaborate on the two processes that underlie this state of affairs and offer possibilities for a more just, more equal higher education system. Such a system rests on the belief that higher education is good not only for one's own children but is good for <emph>everyone's children</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0144691474-2">The Rise of Public Vulnerability</hd> <p>In our book <emph>Unequal Higher Education</emph>, we set out to understand how the social and financial dynamics of higher education shaped students' opportunities. We built an empirical model to classify all 4-year higher education institutions in the United States using four widely available, reliable, and conceptually meaningful variables. The model generated seven categories for all public and nonprofit 4-year institutions in the country. Table 1 summarizes our model and each of the categories it generated.</p> <p>Table 1. Categories and Variables Included in the Quantitative Model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Category</td><td>Example Institution</td><td>Education Expenses per Student</td><td>Share of Education Expenses From Tuition</td><td>Average Total Enrollment</td><td>Admission rate</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Vulnerable</td><td>University of North Alabama</td><td>Below average</td><td>Above average</td><td>Below average</td><td>Above average</td></tr><tr><td>Subsidy reliant</td><td>Chicago State University</td><td>Below average</td><td>Below average</td><td>Below average</td><td>Above average</td></tr><tr><td>Smaller typical universities</td><td>Appalachian State University</td><td>Below average</td><td>Below average</td><td>Above average</td><td>Above average</td></tr><tr><td>Larger typical universities</td><td>University of Kentucky</td><td>Below average</td><td>Below average</td><td>Above average</td><td>Average</td></tr><tr><td>Multiversities</td><td>University of Washington</td><td>Above average</td><td>Below average</td><td>Above average</td><td>Below average</td></tr><tr><td>Elite</td><td>Georgetown University</td><td>Above average</td><td>Below average</td><td>Below average</td><td>Below average</td></tr><tr><td>Super elite</td><td>Yale University</td><td>Above average</td><td>Below average</td><td>Above average</td><td>Below average</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The majority of institutions belonged to a group that we call Vulnerable colleges and universities. Vulnerability resulted from a dangerous combination of extreme tuition dependence and low levels of student demand. A modest drop in student numbers could spell severe financial trouble. The risk of enrollment decline is high at this type of institution because student demand is limited.</p> <p>In 2005, only small private institutions were classed as Vulnerable. By 2013, things had changed, and more than 10% of all public colleges and universities in our sample had become Vulnerable. Examples of public universities classified as vulnerable in 2013 include Alabama A&M University, Black Hills State University in South Dakota, Lake Superior State University in Michigan, Lyndon State College in Vermont, and Texas A & M University–Commerce. Although our analysis ended in 2013, we have no reason the believe that the trend has decreased in subsequent years. Today there are likely even more Vulnerable public institutions than there were in 2013.</p> <p>All 32 of the newly Vulnerable publics that we identified in 2013 came from the Subsidy Reliant category. In our view, a Subsidy Reliant institution offers excellent value because the institution spends far more on education than students spend on tuition. Each dollar of tuition payment is matched by several dollars of subsidy, primarily from state governments.</p> <p>We think the size of the subsidy matters for two reasons. First, evidence suggests that total educational spending predicts enrollment and completion (e.g., Deming & Walters, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref7">9</reflink>]). Even though Subsidy Reliant campuses do not spend lavishly, they do make available an education that is more resource-intensive than many students could afford to pay for themselves. Second, providing a substantial subsidy to public institutions is one way to demonstrate the public commitment to delivering high-value educational opportunities to a socioeconomically and racially diverse group of students. Funding institutions that serve a diverse student body indicates the social consensus that expanding higher education opportunity benefits both the students who attend and society as a whole.</p> <p>The symbolic message conveyed through subsidy reliance translates into real consequences for individual students. Student bodies at Subsidy Reliant campuses tend to be racially and economically diverse. Subsidy Reliant institutions enroll Black students, Native students, and individuals who are eligible for the Pell grant at above-average rates. The graduation gap between students who identify as Black and those who identify as White, a measure of equity developed by Andrew Nichols and Denzel Evans-Bell (2017), is much smaller at Subsidy Reliant institutions than at Vulnerable institutions.</p> <p>If Subsidy Reliant institutions offer so many attractive qualities, why have their numbers been in decline while there is growth in the number of Vulnerable institutions? We attribute the growth in Vulnerable public institutions to a combination of factors. On the state level, public divestment has unleashed competition among institutions. On the organizational level, institutions facing budgetary uncertainty have sought to secure their financial positions while competing for prestige. On the individual level, well-to-do families seek to monopolize the best higher education opportunities for themselves.</p> <p>We think each of these factors manifests declining trust in higher education. Subsidy Reliant institutions become Vulnerable because declining social consensus undercuts the public funding on which they depend. When institutions become Vulnerable, their students are exposed to the human and financial costs of weakening social support for higher education. Tuition prices rise while educational spending holds flat. Student outcomes become more unequal. Students have fewer chances to attend an institution that offers a vibrant education relative to the price, which means there are many fewer good-value opportunities than there were only a few years ago. A vicious cycle continues, eroding both public confidence and individual opportunity.</p> <p>Of course, many institutions continue to offer broad access to higher education, and participation in the United States remains high (Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>]). But access—the chance to attend <emph>somewhere</emph>—is not the same as opportunity—the expectation of a good-value seat where an institution spends a reasonably high amount on education and students pay a relatively low share of that spending.</p> <p>Vulnerable institutions provide access while limiting opportunity because they charge higher prices and offer lower subsidies than do their Subsidy Reliant counterparts. Attending a Vulnerable institution is almost certainly better, for most people, than skipping college altogether. Yet the continued transition of Subsidy Reliant institutions into Vulnerable institutions—and, with it, the erosion of opportunity into access alone—means that most students' chances are not as good as they would have been a generation before.</p> <p>The number of good-value seats has declined at the same time that overall participation grew (Cantwell, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]). The result has been that more students are getting more unequal deals than was the case a short time ago. The coincidence of growing participation and widening inequality among institutions seems to have contributed to declining trust in higher education. Polling data indicate, for example, that most people view tuition prices as alarmingly high (Fingerhut, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>]). As we illustrate in the next section, however, this mistrust is not evenly distributed across the country. It is especially concentrated among White Republicans.</p> <hd id="AN0144691474-3">Partisanship and the Politics of Racial Resentment</hd> <p>Reduced state support for higher education, which has produced newly Vulnerable public colleges and universities, is the result of political processes. The second factor we identify as contributing to a crisis in public higher education is partisanship and the politics of racial resentment. We think that partisan politics contributes to divestment. Along with other explanations, focus on political partisanship shows how the politics of White racial resentment can shape the way states fund higher education.</p> <p>Declining state support may appeal to elite interests that tend to support lower rates of taxation on high incomes and accumulated wealth. Policy makers are highly responsive to elite social groups (Bartels, 2016; Gilens & Page, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>]). Cutting funding to higher education is also framed as a way to reform an inefficient industry (Gándara & Hearn, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>]; Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Miller & Morphew, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]). Powerful lobbies such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (Hertel-Fernandez, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref14">16</reflink>]) and nonpartisan groups such as the Gates Foundation (Miller & Morphew, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]) have introduced efforts to divert direct support from higher education. Both Democrats and Republicans have been responsive to such groups (Mettler, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref16">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>We believe heightened partisanship (Grossman & Hopkins, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]) and the politics of resentment (Cramer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref18">8</reflink>]) also contribute to the pattern of state divestment. Recent research has found that strong negative partisanship among Republicans results in preferences for policies that are presumed to benefit the Party's base and antagonize its political rivals rather than for policies that are consistent with its espoused governing philosophies (e.g., Abramowitz, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]; Abramowitz & Webster, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]). Because the Republican Party's voters are more likely to be White, male, and Christian than is the public at large (Mason, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>]), these findings map onto state divestment from higher education institutions that serve a racially diverse group of students.</p> <p>Our own research confirms that partisanship and White racial resentment play a role in higher education policy making. In a recent study (Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]), we found that the interaction of partisan control of state government and the racial demographics of public higher education enrollments (relative to the demographics of the state itself) predicted changes in state appropriations for higher education. When White student enrollments grew faster than the total White population of the state, unified Republican governments spent more on higher education than expected. By contrast, unified Republican governments cut funding more deeply than expected when White student overrepresentation was lower. We found no association between changes in White representation and higher education funding when states were controlled by unified Democratic governments or under mixed-party control.</p> <p>We interpret our findings as evidence that partisanship and the politics of racial resentment relate to the ways state governments fund higher education. This relationship has likely intensified as partisan identification has become more entrenched (Mason, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref24">22</reflink>]). According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, in 2010, 63% of Democrats and 58% of Republications—a gap of just 5 percentage points—reported that "colleges and universities have a positive effect on the county" (Fingerhut, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref25">10</reflink>], para 3). By 2019, things looked much different. That year, 67% of Democrats and just 33% of Republications—a gap of 34 percentage points—believed higher education exerted a positive influence in the county. Remarkably, a substantial majority (59%) of Republicans saw higher education as a <emph>negative</emph> force in American life compared to only 18% of Democrats (Parker, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>]). In less than a decade, the social consensus on the value of higher education seems to have shattered. Belief in the value of higher education has become a partisan issue.</p> <p>Findings from Pew's periodically updated study are greeted with interest and concern but also with some skepticism because of seemingly conflicting evidence. The same studies found that a majority of college-educated Republicans viewed their own college experiences positively in terms of skills attainment, job opportunities, and personal growth (Fingerhut, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>]; Parker, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref28">26</reflink>]). Data gathered by New America, a nonpartisan think tank, showed that most Republicans support using tax funds to pay for higher education and hold a favorable opinion of the colleges and universities that are local to them (Fishman, Ezeugo, & Nguyen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref29">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>How can Republicans' view that higher education has a negative influence in the country fit with reporting favorable personal experiences and even agreeing that tax money should be used to support the sector? These seemingly dissonant findings may be explained by the changing social consensus to support higher education. Republican voters appear to want higher education, but only under certain conditions. Colleges that they have attended or that employ people in their local communities meet with approval. That is, many Republican-leaning voters and the officials who represent them seem to want higher education to benefit specific individuals and communities. Further, these voters would like taxpayers to help shoulder costs at these institutions.</p> <p>This part of the old social consensus—the belief that higher education is good for me— and for my children—endures. However, the belief that higher education is good for the public at large does not seem to have held up as well. Of course, White people have hoarded opportunity in higher education since the establishment of the first colleges in North America (Wilder, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref30">30</reflink>]). There is nothing new about contests over who belongs in higher education. However, the ways in which White racial resentment manifests itself in higher education policy have changed. Anything that seems to advance the interests of people of color is likely to engender White rage (Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref31">4</reflink>]). In the age of hyper-partisanship, with parties that are largely sorted along racial lines, such rage is difficult to distinguish from partisanship.</p> <p>When this hyper-partisanship is overlaid with the rise of public vulnerability, an ugly picture emerges. Higher education as a public good that should be broadly accessible to many people becomes an ever-smaller part of the social consensus. Public colleges and universities instead focus on serving those who can pay the bills and, increasingly, rely on tuition to stay afloat. The result is a more highly stratified system in which prestigious publics are not nearly as racially or socioeconomically diverse as is the system as a whole. Despite its obvious racial inequities, this system provokes White resentment in an age of hyper-partisanship, resulting in further divestment in many states.</p> <hd id="AN0144691474-4">Where Do We Go From Here?</hd> <p>The higher education system currently in the United States seems increasingly to rest on a belief that higher education is beneficial for one's own children but need not be provided for everyone's children. Parents with social and economic advantages sometimes even cheat, as revealed by "Operation Varsity Blues," to get their children into the best possible college (Jaschik, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref32">18</reflink>]). When it becomes clear that additional resources and strategies will be needed to revitalize public higher education as a whole, however, there appears to be little appetite for ensuring that the system serves a racially and socioeconomically diverse cohort of students.</p> <p>We see three possible futures for this system. The first is the maintenance of the status quo. In this scenario, the majority of Americans still support public funding for higher education on a limited basis, and the majority of Americans will still enroll in college. But the conditions of enrollment will become increasingly unequal, as anemic state support results in even more public institutions slipping into vulnerability. The result is likely to be more of the same: rising tuition, growing debt, and stratified patterns of access and outcomes—all of which reinforce the declining social consensus, thereby perpetuating a cycle of divestment and inequality.</p> <p>A second scenario is that higher education becomes an even bigger wedge in the country's hyper-partisan and racialized politics. In this scenario, partisans animated by White identity politics might more actively seek to punish what they regard as "other people's children" while preserving rewards for their own (cf. Jardina, 2019). Selective educational disenfranchisement through major changes to the Higher Education Act – say, withdrawal of federal funds for Tribal Colleges, HBCUs, and other Minority Serving Institutions – is possible, although Congress still shows bipartisan support for these programs. States could enact laws that make it harder to enroll in college – for example, by demanding extensive documentation of identity, as has been the case with voting in some states (Rocha & Matsubayashi, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>]). In this scenario, which we think is unlikely but imaginable, partisan neglect for other people's children becomes open hostility.</p> <p>The third scenario is the development of a new, more broadly participatory consensus acknowledging that providing affordable, high quality educational experiences is a collective responsibility. Additional resources will be required from taxpayers. Institutions will need to provide assurances of public focus and good management. Such commitments are only possible when trust exists between all parties (Longanecker, Falkenstern, & Michelau, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref34">20</reflink>]). We believe a commitment to everyone's children – not just the children of the socially and economically privileged – is necessary to forge and sustain such a consensus. Such a project could be part of a wider investment in social and physical infrastructure designed to face an array of issues such as wealth inequality, health care access, and climate change.</p> <p>Building this kind of consensus is intrinsically political, but it is not necessarily partisan. It is political in the sense that it is about values, goals, and priorities. Making good on a shared social belief requires governments to marshal structures and resources in support of those values. Establishing a new consensus demands moving beyond the questions we often ask about how to calibrate higher education efficiently. Worries about efficiency dominate policy discussions today (Berman, in press). Before we can make the system efficient and effective, however, we must agree on the system's purpose. That means we must address broader discussions about why we should provide higher education for everyone's children.</p> <ref id="AN0144691474-5"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref19" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> <ulink href="http://www.changemag.org">www.changemag.org</ulink> </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref20" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> change • May/June 2020</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0144691474-6"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abramowitz, A. (2018). The great alignment: Race, party transformation, and the rise of Donald Trump. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abramowitz, A., & Webster, S. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref21" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Abramowitz, A., & Webster, S. (2018). Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike partisanship but behave like rabid partisans. Advances in Political Psychology, 39 (1), 119 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12479</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, C. (2016). White rage: The unspoken truth of our racial divide. New York, NY : Bloomsbury.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bartels, L. (2018). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Berman, E. P. (in press). Thinking like an economist: How economics became the language of US public policy. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref8" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cantwell, B. (2018). Broad access and steep stratification in the first mass system: High participation higher education in the United States of America. In B. Cantwell, S. Marginson, & A. Smolentsiva (Eds.), High participation systems of higher education (pp. 227 – 265). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref18" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cramer, K. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref7" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Deming, D. J., & Walters, C. R. (2017). The impact of price caps and spending cuts on US postsecondary attainment (No. w23736). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fingerhut, H. (2017). Republicans skeptical of colleges' impact on U.S., but most see benefits for workforce preparation. Pew Fact Tank. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/">http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fishman, R., Ezeugo, E., & Nguyen, S. (2018). Varying degrees 2018: New America's annual survey on higher education. Retrieved from https://d1y8sb8igg2f8e.cloudfront.net/documents/Varying_Degrees_2018_Final_PDF.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gándara, D., & Hearn, J. C. (2019). College completion, the Texas way: An examination of the development of college completion policy in a distinctive political culture. Teachers College Record, 121 (1), n2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12 (3), 564 – 581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossman, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats. New York, NY : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haddad, N., & Reckhow, S. (2018). The shifting role of higher education philanthropy: A network analysis of philanthropic policy strategies. Philanthropy & Education, 2 (1), 25 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hertel-Fernandez, A. (2019). State capture. New York, NY : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jardina, A. (2019). White identity politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaschik, S. (2019, March 13). Massive admissions scandal. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/03/13/dozens-indicted-alleged-massive-case-admissions-fraud">www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/03/13/dozens-indicted-alleged-massive-case-admissions-fraud</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34 (1), 39 – 81. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034001039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longanecker, D., Falkenstern, C., & Michelau, D. (2019). A tale of two pities: Revisited. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 51 (4), 18 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2019.1618141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loss, C. P. (2012). Between citizens and the state. New York, NY : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mettler, S. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the American dream. New York, NY: Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, G. N., & Morphew, C. C. (2017). Merchants of optimism: Agenda-setting organizations and the framing of performance-based funding for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 88 (5), 754 – 784. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1313084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nichols, A. H., & Evans-Bell, D. (2017). A look at Black student success: Identifying top- and bottom-performing institutions. Washington, DC : The Education Trust.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, K. (2019). The growing partisan divide in views of higher education. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education/">www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rocha, R. R., & Matsubayashi, T. (2014). The politics of race and voter ID laws in the states: The return of Jim Crow? Political Research Quarterly, 67 (3), 666 – 679. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913514854</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2019). Unequal higher education: Wealth, status and student opportunity. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. J., Cantwell, B., Watts, K., & Wood, O. (2020). Partisanship, White racial resentment, and state support for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1706016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilder, C. S. (2013). Ebony and ivy: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America's universities. New York, NY : Bloomsbury Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Brendan Cantwell and Barrett J. Taylor</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Brendan Cantwell is an Associate Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. Brendan is joint Editor-in-Chief of the journal Higher Education. His work addresses the political economy of higher education and has been published in leading journals in the field, including The Journal of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, Teachers College Record , and the Harvard Educational Review. He has coauthored or coedited four books.</p> <p>Barrett J. Taylor is an Associate Professor of Higher Education at the University of North Texas. His research focuses on power and inequality in higher education, with specific attention to institutional stratification and its consequences for students, state policy and politics in higher education, and the organization of academic work. He is the coauthor (with Brendan Cantwell) of Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status and Student Opportunity (Rutgers University Press, 2019).</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref34"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1262256
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Political Rancor and Educational Inequality: Why Building Consensus Is Necessary to Renew American Higher Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cantwell%2C+Brendan%22">Cantwell, Brendan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Taylor%2C+Barrett+J%2E%22">Taylor, Barrett J.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Change%3A+The+Magazine+of+Higher+Learning%22"><i>Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning</i></searchLink>. 2020 52(3):68-72.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 5
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Political+Attitudes%22">Political Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Relations%22">Racial Relations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22American+Indian+Students%22">American Indian Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22African+American+Students%22">African American Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Low+Income+Students%22">Low Income Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Schools%22">Public Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tuition%22">Tuition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Aid%22">State Aid</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Financial+Support%22">Financial Support</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Bias%22">Racial Bias</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00091383.2020.1745607
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0009-1383
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Since the Great Recession, a number of public colleges and universities have become operationally vulnerable. In this article, the authors point to two related processes leading to this crisis in public higher education. The first is the recent deterioration of operational conditions for a number of public colleges and universities. The second process results from hyper-partisan state governments and especially the politics of racial resentment that often motivate electoral participation among White voters. Under hyper-partisan conditions, some state governments have divested from public higher education especially aggressively when the student bodies of public colleges and universities grow more racially diverse than is the state as a whole (Taylor, Cantwell, Watts, & Wood, 2020). They elaborate on the two processes that underlie this state of affairs and offer possibilities for a more just, more equal higher education system
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: ERIC
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1262256
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1262256
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00091383.2020.1745607
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 5
        StartPage: 68
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Political Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Relations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: American Indian Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: African American Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Low Income Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tuition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Aid
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Financial Support
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Bias
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Political Rancor and Educational Inequality: Why Building Consensus Is Necessary to Renew American Higher Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cantwell, Brendan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Taylor, Barrett J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0009-1383
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning
              Type: main
ResultId 1