Proposal to Discontinue Bankhead-Jones The 1971 OE budget request depicted Bankhead-Jones as "an example of effective Federal-State cooperation in financing higher education." It also proposed to terminate the program. For fiscal year 1971, no funds are requested under set aside under the "developing institutions" land-grant institutions in the South. (1971 Budget During testimony in behalf of the administration's position, an Office of Education spokesman reiterated the point that "The Bankhead-Jones Act has been a minor source of funds for most land-grant institutions some of which are among the strongest and most prestigious colleges and universities in the country." Peter Muirhead, then the Associate Commissioner for Higher Education, described Bankhead-Jones as a program with a fine history, but not in line with the "No. 1 priority...to extend equal educational opportunity to as many young people as possible." The question as to how to foster equality of educational opportunity-through individual or institutional grants--runs throughout the legislative history thereafter. Reiterating an earlier pledge, an Office of Education spokesman promised to set aside under the developing institutions program funds to assist those few land-grant institutions which would be hurt seriously by the cute few Countering this testimony, Dr. Wilson Elkins, President of the University of Maryland, appeared on behalf of the National Association of State Universities and Land-grant Colleges. He labeled as grossly inaccurate administration statements calling Bankhead-Joned "outdated," as "a minute source of revenue," and one which be supplanted by the developing institutions program. The proposed reductions in funds were the equivalent of some 1,200 faculty positions and at least 18,000 students, he reported. He said that the developing institutions program, which awards grants on a competitive basis for limited periods of time and specific purposes, is not intended to support the fundamental instructional program of the college on a continuing basis, as are the land-grant funds. Finally, he depicted a cut in funding as falling disproportionately 1/ House Hearings on H. R. 16916, March 10, 1970, pp. 463-516. Funding information on the developing institutions program appears as an addendum to this appendix. upon the incoming freshmen class of fall 1971, since many State legislatures operate on a biennial funding basis and alternative sources of support were not available at this late date. 2/ A similar deposition was made before the Senate Appropriations Submittee by David Mullins, President of the University of Arkansas. In those hearings, Senator Magnuson ascertained that the land-grant instructional funds benefit all students in the academic fields supported, not just the disadvantaged, though Dr. Mullins emphasized that the Colleges of Agriculture and Engineering in land-grant institutions enroll numerous disadvantaged students, with many coming from rural areas and small towns. 3/ The House Report agreed with the administration that Bankhead-Jones "funds go to well-established, relatively affluent institutions, and form a very small portion of their annual budgets." The Report went on to say that "The Committee does not disagree with the Administration's objective of eliminating this grant, but has provided $8,080,000, twothirds of the appropriation, to permit a gradual phase-out rather than the abrupt termination proposed in the budget." The Senate Report expressed the viewpoint that "a reduction in this long-established program would create an undue burden on the land-grant colleges which have not had sufficient time to adjust their individual budgets." The committee allowed full funding, at $12,120,000, with the comment that it "does not condone the administration's attempt to repeal legislative authority in this manner." The conferees arrived at a figure of $10,080,000 for fiscal year 1971 Bankhead-Jones appropriations, a decrease of more than $2 million from the previous year. 1972 The basic lines of discourse were sharpened in 1972. At the House Hearings, John Oswald, President of Pennsylvania State University, representing land-grant institutions, compared the land-grant instructional program with other forms of Federal assistance. "Almost the only Federal program that today helps the colleges and universities keep down their tuition charges to students is the Morrill and Bankhead-Jones program,' he noted. "Most of the Federal programs have tended to accelerate this trend toward higher tuition charges, by imposing additional burdens on the colleges and universities through required matching funds, failure 2/ House Hearing on H.R. 16916, March 16, 1970, pp. 1235-1243. of the Federal agencies to pay full cost to the universities for the programs supported, and the like." As a consequence, President Oswald said "if the trend (of rapidly rising tuition and fee charges) continues, students from middle-class families will be squeezed out, leaving only the sons and daughters of the very rich and the very poor who are aided aided through scholarships, work-study programs, and low-interest loans." At the Senate Hearings, the position taken by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was this: The House bill (for fiscal year 1972) includes $5 million Senator Cotton asked whether the Department wanted to discontinue assistance to the land-grant institutions other than the black (1890) institutions. Secretary Elliot Richardson replied: It isn't really a trade-off, Senator Cotton, as we Secretary Richardson later added: Does it make sense to continue a program that reaches 6/ House Hearings on H.R. 7016, March 11, 1971, p. 369. Senator Magnuson stated his disagreement with the notion that the appropriations committee should assume the responsibility for phasing out a legislated program: ...if you don't like the law or the administration the law, not to repeal it by asking for no money and Funding for 1972 was set at $10 million, which was $80,000 less than the previous year. 1973-1975 These positions remained unchanged during the following two years, and funding remained approximately constant. For fiscal year 1973, zero-level funding was requested for Bankhead-Jones, no justification was presented in the OE budget submission, and the legislative record shows no testimony on the land-grant instructional programs. For fiscal year 1974, the budget hearings were the occasion for restating basic positions. OE altered its stance on support for 1890 institutions through the developing institutions program from one of promise to that of continuing support. Finally, the administration requested a recision of the 1973 funds appropriated for Bankhead-Jones, which Congress denied. By the early 1970's the Office of Education had undertaken several programs of individual student assistance which today amount to many billions of dollars of Federal assistance annually. This shift in emphasis from institutional to student support was underscored in the 1975 submission, as follows: Institution assistance is decreased...as a consequence of proposing a shift to student assistance designed to further equal education and opportunity (sic). (1975 Budget Justification, U.S. Office of Education) In the budget hearings for fiscal year 1975, the administration unveiled a plan to repeal the land-grant legislation for resident instructional support. Also data were introduced comparing the amount of support received by land-grant institutions from Bankhead-Jones and MorrillNelson with their current operating expenditures. Congressman Flood initiated the questioning as follows: This budget again proposes to phase out the land-grant Peter Muirhead, representing the Office of Education, replied: As you have pointed out to us many times, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Michel expressed agreement with the administration's position, adding "we must have some good solid information here upon which to build a case." He suggested trend data on enrollment at land-grant institutions and their operating expenditures. The Office of Education furnished for the record 1970 data on Federal land-grant instructional funds as a percentage of institutional operating expenditures. On the average, Bankhead-Jones and Morrill-Nelson combined represented 0.3 percent of the total operating expenditures at land-grant institutions in 1970. With no headway on the proposed legislation to repeal the land-grant legislation, the authorization for fiscal year 1975 remained at the 1974 level. A subsequent recision request of 1975 funding was denied. 1976-1978 For fiscal year 1976, no funds were requested for Bankhead-Jones. Also, the original budget submission included no funds for MorrillNelson, although subsequently the request was modified to full funding. Congress appropriated the same amount as for 1975 and later denied a recision request. In the following year, the administration requested funds for neither program. Senate budget hearings on higher education included testimony from several public witnesses, among them Charles Saunders Jr. of the American Council of Education, and Miles Mark Fisher IV of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. Mr. Saunders asked for the maximum authorization for land-grant instructional programs, stating: Bankhead-Jones funds are among the most useful its 7/ Ibid., pp. 500-506. |