Weekly Briefing

A refresher course on the point of public education

One of the worst (though not irreversible) injuries inflicted upon America by the market fundamentalist right in recent years has been the "commodification" of public education. In keeping with their mantra that markets and greed are the only sure and useful drivers of human behavior, the right has succeeded in convincing millions of people that education is, first and foremost, a commodity to be consumed by "customers" who must demand a high quality "product" that will prepare them to "compete in the market economy."

The result, as we've noted in this space before, is that many people have begun to relate to schools (and other public institutions) like they do to a suburban box store. Rather than asking, for instance, "How can we improve the system for everyone so that society as a whole benefits?" the only questions today seems to be "What's in it for me and my kids?" and "What will it cost me?"

In this greed-uber-alles model, education of the disadvantaged is permissible, but seen more as charity work than as a societal imperative. And education of the immigrant - particularly the undocumented immigrant? Well, that amounts to "giving away" a "scarce resource" - something that just can't be permitted in the modern, dog-eat-dog economy.

Add to this mix the standard measure of fear of "the other," a dose of unrepentant nativism, and a large helping of political opportunism and the next thing you know, you've got an environment in which a supposedly progressive gubernatorial nominee feels compelled to take the lead on closing the door to the community college system for undocumented young people - even if they're willing to pay out-of state tuition to attend.   

None of this is to excuse Lt. Governor Perdue's recent actions on the community college issue. Regardless of the political environment in which she operates (and there are actually credible indicators that the immigration issue is not as politically toxic as she apparently fears), her action was disturbingly callous and ill-conceived. Still, her actions were also clearly emblematic of a shift that has occurred in how modern America views and treats public education.   

Getting back to basics

Fortunately, not everyone has yet succumbed to the right's pessimistic and cynical take. Many thinking people from various points on the political spectrum continue to understand and espouse the fact that public education is not a zero-sum game (i.e. a place in which one person's gain must come at another's expense). These individuals and groups understand that public education is more akin to a communal savings account - a place in which today's investments bear fruit tomorrow. They also understand that whatever the current state of the national debate over immigration reform, in the long run, North Carolina can never have too many educated and enlightened people.

Two excellent examples of this brand of thinking were on display last week in a pair of letters delivered to the Community College board prior to its unfortunate decision on Friday the 15^th to block the schoolhouse door.  

The first letter was from a group known as the Institute for Emerging Issues' Business Committee on Higher Education — a group of business leaders representing 19 industries employing more than 65,000 workers statewide. The group is chaired by Ann Goodnight of the computer giant SAS and Robert Ingram of the pharmaceutical multi-national GlaxoSmithKlein. Here are some key excerpts:

"We on the BCHE recognize that the promise of economic growth and prosperity in our state and nation depends on increasing the number of highly educated and qualified workers, and to do that our systems of higher education must be responsive to market forces."

The letter than goes on to quote a recommendation that the group developed in a report it released last fall entitled Transforming Higher Education: A Competitive Advantage for North Carolina:

"The Need to Increase Access to Higher Education for Undocumented Students - The growth rate of North Carolina's Latino community is among the highest in the nation. Latino school-aged enrollment has grown almost 50 percent in just five years. Many of these students receive all of their formal education in the North Carolina public school system. They excel in the classroom and obtain a high school diploma but are unable to gain affordable access to our state's colleges and universities because of their undocumented status. North Carolina must make higher education accessible for all academically qualified students regardless of their immigration status."  

The second letter was submitted by a group of social justice organizations known as the Adelante Education Coalition. It too emphasized the broad society-wide benefits of an "open door" policy at the community college system. Among the points made in the letter:

• Since all immigrants pay taxes regardless of their status, an open door admissions policy strengthens the state's future tax base by lifting the earning potential of more people.
• Given the fact that many North Carolina businesses are already recruiting college graduates from outside the state, an open door admissions policy promotes home grown workforce development.
• An open door admissions policy is self-funding and does not add administrative costs to the community college system since undocumented students would pay the out-of-state tuition rate. Such tuition payments will not only cover the entire cost of each student's enrollment, but provide the system with additional revenue over and above the cost of enrollment.

A divide on the right

Interestingly, despite the recent fireworks and political pandering on the community college admissions issue, the right-wing is far from united in its stance. In addition to the array of ordinarily conservative corporate voices speaking out in favor of open door admissions, even some denizens of the ultra-conservative Pope, Inc. think tank empire have dissented from the anti-immigrant line. Perhaps most notable in this group is Jane S. Shaw, head of the Pope Center for Higher Education.

In an opinion piece penned last December, Shaw said this:

"…individuals who live in the United States, even though illegally, should be allowed to attend college if they pay the full cost of their education."

She continued:

"If we accept, as most Americans seem to, a de facto right of illegal immigrants to live and work in the United States, it seems counterproductive to shut academically capable individuals off from education, which is presumably good for individuals and for society." (Emphasis supplied).

Going forward

In the days ahead, proponents of admitting undocumented immigrants will make several solid and compelling arguments about fairness and common sense. Topping the list will be this one:

"How can it possibly be fair to close the schoolhouse door to a young person who has lived in the United States since he or she was a small child, speaks only English and is a model student? Especially in a state obsessed with the rise of gangs and gang-related crime, how can it make sense to intentionally add to the number of disaffected and alienated young people who make such ideal recruits for these groups?"

Perhaps this argument will be persuasive to some. Let's hope so.

Ultimately, however, the best overarching reason to preserve the open door is about more than just fairness and near-term practicalities. It is about reclaiming and reinvigorating our historical commitment to universal public education as the cornerstone of a healthy and free society - a collective and shared enterprise to which we all contribute and from which we all receive immeasurable benefits. Let's hope that, ultimately, the current debate proves to be the first step in such an effort.  

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 21st, 2008 at 11:12 am and is filed under Weekly Briefing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.