Free Higher Education

Author(s): Adolph Reed Jr. and Sharon Szymanski

Source: Academe, Vol. 90, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 2004), pp. 39-43
Published by: American Association of University Professors
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40252653 .
Accessed: 30/08/2013 11:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Association of University Professors is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Academe.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.200 on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:42:50 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Free
Higher
Education
Once,
financial aidwas seen
as a
way
todemocratize
universities and
colleges.
Today's
financial aid
policies
are
widening
the
gap
betweeneducational haves
andhave-nots. Free tuition
will reverse this trend.
By Adolph
Reed,
Jr.,
and
SharonSzymanski
crisis of
affordability
in
higher
education
is
intensifying.
Illustrations of its resonance
abound: from the
frequent
news articles
describing
and
amplifying
the crisis andits
sources to
legislators'
andcandidates'
pro-
posedresponses. Republicans' responses
tend
tobe
mainly punitive
toward
institutions;
Democrats'
pro-
posals
are more
complicated
and
expensive
than
they
needto
be,
andless
capable
of
garnering
broad
support
from the
American
people.1
There
is, however,
a
clear,
simple,
anddirect
way
tohave a
significantimpact
onthis crisis of access. It
begins
from the
assumption
that
higher
educationshouldbe available as a
right
inour
publiccolleges
for all
applicants
whomeetadmissions Adolph
Reed Sharon
Szymanski
Adolph
Reedis
professor
of political
science atthe
New School
University
andco-chair
of
Free
Higher
Education,
a
campaign for
free
tuitionat
publiccolleges
anduniversities. Sharon
Szymanski
is aneconomist
atthe Labor Institute in
New York
City.
JULY-AUGUST
2004 39
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.200 on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:42:50 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
standards
regardless
of their
ability
to
pay.
Tomake it
so,
the
federal
government
should
pay
tuitionandfees for all
students,
part
andfull
time,
whoare enrolledintwo- and
four-year
public
institutions inthe UnitedStates.
(Eighty-three percent
of
undergraduates
now attend
publicinstitutions.)
The AAUP's Collective
BargainingCongress
has
adopted
the
proposal,
as have several individual collective
bargaining
chapters,
state AFL-CIO bodies in
Oregon
andSouth
Carolina,
anddozens of other
unions,
academic
organizations,
and
community
and
advocacy groups
across the
country.
We
believe thatthis
proposal,
whichis modeled
partly
onthe
post-World
War II GI Bill of
Rights,
is anideawhose time has
come
again.
For mostof the
post-World
War
II
era, higher
educationwas viewed
as the vehicle for
closing
the
gap
betweenthe
top
andthe bottom of
the economicladder. Itwas seenas
the
key
to
opportunity
and
upward
mobility
-
part
of whatdefinedthe
AmericanDream. There was no
finer
expression,
or more effective
engine,
of this belief thanthe GI
Bill,
under whichthe federal
government
offeredmillions of
returning
veterans
full tuitionto
college
anda
living-
wage stipend
while
they
were
enrolled. The
broad,
positive impact
of this one
policy
onour
society
is
well recorded.
Today,
however,
higher
education
shows all the
signs
of
following
the
disturbing
trends thatare
fueling
economic
polarization
in
society
in
general.
In
fact, higher
educationis
now
part
of this
process
of
shifting
income tothe
top.
Here's how itworks.
Rising
tuitionis not
just
astatistic.
Together
withthe cur-
rentstructure of financial
aid,
itis
furthering
the transfer of
money
to
wealthy
families andthe financial sector.
Specifically,
as tuition
rises,
access to
college
is limitedtothose whocan
afford
increasing
amounts of
interest-bearing
loans. As tuition
rises,
colleges
are
offering
more merit-based
aid,
whichtends to
benefitwealthier families. As tuition
rises,
students andtheir
families are
taking
on
huge
loan
debt,
whichtransfers
money
tofinancial andcredit-card
companies.
As tuition
rises,
more
pressure
is
put
on
financially strapped
states and
publiccolleges
tofulfill the
push
to
privatize publicservices, includinghigher
education.
Thus not
only
is anentire financial sector
growing
andsoci-
ety's
mostaffluentmembers
personally benefiting
from the
income shift
takingplace
in
higher
education,
butconcerns
over
rising
tuitionare also
being
usedto
promote
the
privatiza-
tionof
yet
another
public
service
-
publichigher
education.
Financial Aidfor the
Wealthy
Huge
increases intuitionandfees inour
colleges
anduniversi-
ties have become
page-one
news. Like healthcare
costs,
the
price
of a
college
educationis
skyrocketing. According
toTrends
in
College Pricing2003, publishedby
the
College Board,
tuition
andfees at
public
two- and
four-year colleges
anduniversities
increased14
percentcompared
withthe
previous year.
When
room andboardandother
expenses
are takeninto
account,
pub-
licinstitutions cost
$20,879,
on
average,
for anout-of-state stu-
dentand
$13,833
for anin-state student. Private
colleges
and
universities costan
average
of
$29,500.
The tuitionincrease at
four-year colleges
was the
largest
in
twenty-five years.
The
College
Board
reports
inTrends inStudent Aid2003 and
Trends in
College Pricing2003, however,
thateven
though
tuitionandfees are
high,
moststudents donot
pay
the "stick-
er"
prices,
because financial
aid, totaling
$105 billionnation-
wide,
is
provided
toalmost60
per-
centof
undergraduate
students. So
perhaps
the
picture
isn'tas bleak as it
seems. Or is it?
The most
significantmisconcep-
tionis thatfinancial aidmakes
college
affordable for those whocanleast
affordit. In
fact,
financial aidhas
undergone
a
repackaging
thathas hit
hardestthe students andfamilies who
needit
most,
andthathas increased
the financial burdenfor mostwork-
ing
families.
Today,
families with
incomes
up
to
$25,000
canbe asked
to
pay
as muchas 71
percent
of their
earnings
tosendasonor
daughter
to
a
publicfour-year college;
families
whose incomes
range
from
$43,000
to
$66,000
pay
from 17 to19
per-
cent. Yetfamilies withincomes over
$99,000 pay only
5 to6
percent
of
their income.
Inthe 1970s and
1980s,
financial
aid
helped
toincrease access to
college
for those students who
otherwise couldn'taffordit. Over the lastten
years, however,
ithas takena
dramatically different
direction.
Today,
financial
aidis
climbinghigher up
the income ladder. In
1985,
accord-
ing
tothe
Higher
EducationResearchInstitute atthe
University
of
California,
46
percent
of
first-year
students
attending
250 select
public
and
private colleges
came from the
highest-earningquarter
of households.
Today,
thatshare has
jumped
toover 55
percent.
Financial aid
programs
are now structuredtoinfluence stu-
dents' choice of
colleges,
rewardacademic
accomplishment
at
the
expense
of financial
need,
andreduce the financial burden
of
higher-income
families. These studentaid
programs rely
increasingly
on
interest-bearing
loans rather thanonneed-
based
grant
aid. A
distressing
resultis thatmillions of
qualified,
lower-income students cannotafford
college.
Moreover,
the
pressure
tooffset
high
tuitioncosts induces
moststudents whodoattend
college
totake on
jobs
andto
work so
many
hours thattheir studies suffer. As
faculty,
we
know the corrosive effects this circumstance has onthe
integri-
ty
of
teaching
and
learning. Gradually,
normative
expectations
about
reading
andother
performance requirements
of acourse
40 ACADEME
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.200 on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:42:50 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
canerode toaccommodate the realities of students' work
commitments.
Many
students wind
up spreading
outtheir
undergraduate
study
over more
years
than
they
would
prefer
andstill
grad-
uate with
huge
loandebt.
Meanwhile,
the holders of
loans
-
Wall Streetandcredit-card
companies
-
are
having
a
field
day.
Less Aidfor Those MostinNeed
Ten
years ago,
over half of financial aidwas inthe form of
grants. Today,
loans have
surpassedgrants, representing
54
percent
of total aid. But
today's "grant
aid" is notwhatit
might
seem to
imply.
The Pell Grant
program represents
the
federal
government's greatest
commitmentto
higher
educa-
tion. Yetitis
paltry.
Pell Grants are
supposed
tobenefitthe
most
financially strapped
students. Butan
average
Pell Grant
is
$2,421.
Moreover, legislators
continue todilute Pell Grants sothat
they
now cover
only
33
percent
of the total costof
attending
an
average two-year publiccollege,
25
percent
of the costat
a
four-year publiccollege,
andless than10
percent
of the
costata
private four-year
school. Rather than
strengthening
the Pell
program,
the currentadministrationhas
legislation
pending
thatwill further weakenPell Grants. The new
eligi-
based
aid,
whichis alsoconsidered
grant
aid,
is awardedfor
academicachievementrather thanneed. Since the
1970s,
need-based
grants
have decreasedfrom 61
percent
of all fed-
eral studentaidto22
percent.
In
addition,
aHarvard
University report
foundthatstates setaside 25
percent
of
their financial aidfor merit-based
support
in
2001, compared
with
just
11
percent
in1991.
Merit-basedaidtends to
go
tostudents from families with
the
highest
incomes. The
College
Board
reports
inTrends in
StudentAid2003 thatstudents from families withincomes of
$83,000
or more in1999-2000
typically
received
larger
schol-
arships
from both
public
and
private colleges
thandidstudents
from families
earning
less than
$31,000.
Yet
many
of the
wealthier students wouldhave attended
college
evenwithout
suchaid.
Today, according
toa
jointreport
thatthe Institute
for
Higher
Education
Policy
and
Scholarship
Americareleased
in
May 2004, only
48
percent
of students from low-income
families
go
to
college, compared
with77
percent
of students
from
high-income
families.
All students shouldbe rewardedinsome
way
for academic
performance.
Butmerit-basedaidreduces the total amount
of need-basedaidavailable,
notthe number of students who
require
financial assistance toattend
college.
Merit-basedaid
is the
primary competitive
tool that
colleges
use to"dis-
Today,
families withincomes
up
to
$25,000
canbe askedto
pay
as
muchas 71
percent
of their
earnings
tosendasonor
daughter
toa
publicfour-year college.
bility
formulaincreases the amountof
money
the
government
says
a
family
has available for
college
costs. As aresultof this
formula
change,
the
Congressional
ResearchService,
the
researcharm of
Congress,
estimatedthat
85,000
students
couldlose their Pell Grants
entirely
andhundreds of thou-
sands will receive less aid. Butthe federal
government
will
save hundreds of millions of
dollars,
andstudents will be
forcedtoseek outmore loans.
The administrationhas been
trying
toreduce the size of
maximum Pell Grants.
Accordingly,
the
president's
fiscal 2005
budgetproposal
asks
Congress
to
keep
the maximum atthe
same level atwhichitwas the
year
before. A
Senate-approved
amendmenttothe administration's
proposal
calls on
Congress
toincrease the maximum Pell Grant,
withthe caveatthat
lawmakers wouldhave tomake cuts inother
popular programs
notrelatedto
higher
education. Since the chances of their
doing
soare slim,
the
only
real
purpose
of the amendmentis
tomake it
appear
as if the administrationandits allies inCon-
gress
are
grappling
with
high
tuitionand, perhaps
more
impor-
tant,
toundercutaDemocraticamendmentto
pay
for
raising
the maximum Pell Grant
by closing
various tax
loopholes.
More Aidfor the
Wealthy
The
growth
of merit-basedaidfurther erodes the total
amountof
money
available for aidbasedonneed. Merit-
count" their tuitiontolure certain, usually higher-income,
students.
Some universities andstates have triedtoaddress
increasing
economic
polarization.
The
University
of NorthCarolinaat
Chapel
Hill
recently
announceda
plan
tocover the full costof
educationfor
poor
students without
forcing
them totake on
loans. The students will have towork instate andfederal work-
study programs
for tentotwelve hours a
week,
whichis man-
ageable.
Itwouldbe amistake, however,
to
imagine
thatstates
canshoulder this burdenontheir own. Because of its
budget
crisis, Georgia,
for
example, may
discontinue its decade-old
scholarship program
for students whomaintainaB
average.
Under abill introduced
by
House
Republicans,
merit-based
aidcouldencroachonneed-basedaidinanevenmore blatant
way.
The bill
proposes awarding
Pell Grants basedonaca-
demicachievement.
Specifically,
full-time
recipients
of Pell
Grants instates thathave State Scholars
Programs
could
receive anadditional $1,000
intheir firstandsecond
years
of
college
if
they
have
completed
a
rigorous high
school curricu-
lum
designedpartly by
business leaders andif
they
maintaina
3.0
grade pointaverage.
The
proposal,
like muchof the
rhetoric
supporting
merit-basedaid, purports
torewardhard-
working
students from low-income families;
in
fact, however,
the students whotake the
demanding
courses are most
likely
already
boundfor
college.
JULY-AUGUST
2004 41
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.200 on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:42:50 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Withneed-based
grant
aid
deteriorating,
mostfamilies
mustturnto
interest-bearing
loans. The AmericanCouncil
onEducation
reported
inits 2003 Status
Report
onthe Federal
EducationLoan
Programs
thatloans now accountfor 75
per-
centof all federal studentaid. Need-based
government-
subsidized
loans,
as ashare of total
loans,
decreasedfrom 33
percent
in1998 to28
percent
in2003. In
contrast,
the more
expensive,
unsubsidized
government
loans available toall
students and
parents, regardless
of
need,
have
grownby
51
percent.
During
the Clinton
administration,
the
bankingindustry
blockeda
congressional
initiative to
expandgovernment-
subsidizeddirectstudentloans andPell Grants
by phasing
out
the federal unsubsidizedloan
program,
which
provides gener-
ous subsidies tobanks
guaranteedby taxpayer money.
Although
the amounts of loans are restrictedfor
students, par-
ents canborrow
up
tothe total costof education.
Withinsufficientfederal loanfunds
available,
students and
their families have toturnto
private loans,
whichhave
sky-
rocketed. Nonfederal loans
through
banks and
private
lenders
amountedto$7.5 billionin2003 and
represented
a41
per-
centincrease
just
from 2002.
Also,
students andtheir families
rely increasingly
on
home-equity
loans and
high-interest-rate
credit-card
financing.
Recentestimates
suggest
thatas
many
as
loans couldno
longer
"lock in" fixedinterestrates for
thirty
years. Rather,
the rates would
vary
from
year
to
year
based
onmarketconditions. The
Congressional
ResearchService
estimates thatif students cannotbundle their loans atlow
fixed
rates, they
will
pay
anextra
$3,115
to
$5,484
in
interest.
Loanconsolidationis a
very big
business. Between2001 and
2002,
borrowers consolidated$17 billionin
loans,
twice as
muchas the
year
before. With
dropping
interest
rates,
refi-
nancing
is
expected
to
grow. According
tothe
July 19, 2002,
issue of the Chronicle
of Higher Education,
the third
largest
loan
consolidator,
Collegiate FundingServices,
made about$1.7
billioninrefinancedloans in2001.
The rationale for
doingaway
withfixedinterestrates on
consolidatedloans is thatthe loan-consolidation
program
costs the
government
billions of dollars insubsidies to
keep
the costs of loans
cheaper
for borrowers.
Supporters
of this
measure
say
the
money
saved
by declining
to
help graduates
repay
loans couldbe usedto
provide
more benefits tocurrent
andfuture students. This
argument
makes sense from the
profit-makingpoint
of view of the studentloan
industry.
Why
nothave the
governmentprovide
subsidies tothe banks
rather thantostudents?
Why
notincrease the new
pool
of
borrowers, who,
in
turn,
will have to
pay higher
interest
Public
colleges,
unable to
compensate
for reducedstate monies and
the withdrawal of federal
aid,
will have noalternative butto
privatize
and
deregulate
their tuition.
25
percent
of students
depend
oncreditcards to
help
finance
college
costs. The resultis that64
percent
of students
graduate
withaloandebt
averaging
close to
$17,000
-
almostdouble
the
average
amountin1992.
Benefits for the Financial Sector
Deeper
loandebtmeans more
profits
for the financial
sector,
particularly suppliers
of studentloans. Executives of SLM Cor-
poration,
the
giant
studentloan
company
knownas Sallie
Mae,
have saidthatthe
rising
costs of educationwill swell its bottom
line for some time tocome. Sallie
Mae,
as a
quasi-federal
agency,
was
supposed
tomake
money
available sothat
college
wouldbe affordable. Butunder the Clinton
administration,
Sallie Mae became a
private corporation,
anditis
profiting.
Withthe loan-basedstructure of federal financial
aid,
the
federal
government
is
effectively guaranteeing
Sallie Mae's
profits
andsuccess
-
its studentloan
portfolio
rose 10
percent
last
year,
anditnow holds more than$85 billioninstudent
loans for about7 millionborrowers. Its stock has risen400
percent
since 2000. SLM
Corporationrecently expanded
its
dominance
by acquiring
Academic
ManagementServices,
a
loan
origination
andtuition
paymentbusiness,
whichwill
give
Sallie Mae another $1.4 billioninstudentloans.
This
spring, Republican
leaders inthe House reintroduced
a2002
proposal whereby
students whoseek consolidation
rates,
permitting
banks to
wring
still
higher payments
outof
debt-ridden
graduates?
Those whowanttodismantle
public
services claim thatunless the consolidation
program
is
"checked"
(thatis,
tiedtoavariable interest
rate),
the
gov-
ernment's costwill
skyrocket, putting
in
jeopardy
all student-
aid
programs. They
make similar
arguments
aboutMedicare
andSocial
Security.
Privatization
Public
colleges
anduniversities
typically depend
onstate
revenues for over one-thirdof their finances. Tuitionand
fees are
increasing,
andmost
likely
will continue to
rise,
because states cannotaffordtomaintain
publiccolleges
with-
outfederal assistance. The Bushadministrationhas
already
givenaway any
additional federal
money
that
might
have
been
forthcomingby doling
outtax breaks tothe affluent
and
corporations
and
ratchetingup
a
huge
deficit. And
administrationofficials
repeatedly
have warned
college
lob-
byists
andleaders nottocome
begging
for more student-aid
money.
Funding
for state schools is the
largestdiscretionary
item in
states'
budgets
andtherefore one of the firstitems to
experi-
ence cuts
during
afiscal crisis.
Historically,
tuitionandfees
have risenwhenstate
appropriations
have decreased. Andthis
is
exactly
whatis
happening
now. As the federal
government
42 ACADEME
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.200 on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:42:50 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
depletes
the
publictreasury,
cash-starvedstates must
pick up
the slack. State
support
for
higher
educationhas declinedsub-
stantially
over the
past
two
decades,
as states have hadto
stretchtheir
budgets
tomaintain
funding
for a
range
of social
services
-
primarily expansions
in
Medicaid,
health
care,
and
unemploymentservices, according
toa2003
Brookings
Institution
report
titledState Fiscal Constraints and
Higher
Education
Spending:
The Role
of
Medicaidandthe Business
Cycle.
As a
result, growth
instate
funding
for
higher
educationactu-
ally
fell tonear zeroin2003. The Rockefeller Institute on
Government
reports
that
states,
and
higher
educationin
partic-
ular,
will continue toface
tightbudget
constraints for atleast
the nextdecade. As states
grapple
with
fallingrevenues,
neo-
conservatives are
demanding
that
publichigher
educationbecome
more cost-effective andless
depen-
denton
government
subsidies. And
sothe seeds of
privatization
are
sown.
Trying
to
appear
as if
they
were
responding
toa
publicoutcry
over
risingtuition,
rather than
attempting
toseize a
ripe
momenttosow these
seeds of
privatizingpubliccolleges,
the
Republicans recently
introduced
a
bill,
the
Affordability
in
Higher
Education
Act,
whichwouldwith-
holdmillions of dollars of federal
money
instudentaidfrom
colleges
thatraise tuitionmuchfaster than
inflation. Atleast24
percent
of col-
leges
wouldbe affectedif the act
became law
today. Although
the
most
punitive parts
of the
legislation
recently
have beenwithdrawn
-
the
withholding
of federal student-aid
monies
-
the
legislation
still
proposes
tomaintaina"watchlist"
of universities and
require
detailed
accounting
if
they
raise
tuitionabove a
prescribed
amount. In
addition,
House
Republican
Howard
McKeon,
the author of the
legislation,
warnedthatfinancial
penalties
couldbe reinstated.
The
potential
resultof this
type
of
legislation, given
hemor-
rhaging
state
budgets
and
inadequate
financial
aid,
is twofold:
(1)
as federal
money
is withdrawnanddivertedtointerest-
bearingloans,
fewer andfewer low- andmiddle-income stu-
dents will be able toattend
publiccolleges,
and
(2) public
col-
leges,
unable to
compensate
for reducedstate monies andthe
withdrawal of federal
aid,
will have noalternative butto
priva-
tize and
deregulate
their tuition.
Only
the more affluentstu-
dents will be able toafford
publiccolleges. Following
the neo-
conservative's
campaign,
the
government
will have removed
itself from
guaranteeinghigher
educationtoall its citizens. The
shared
publicpriority
of
higher
educationfor all as
part
of the
AmericanDream will be dismantled.
As state
budget
deficits
squeeze higher education,
states are
forcedtoconsider financial
changes
thatmake their
public
col-
leges
resemble
private
institutions. Public
colleges
in
Virginia
are
debating
whether totake less state
money
inorder toraise
badly
neededtuition. A recent
study
indicates thatColorado
couldrunoutof
money
for
higher
education
by
2009. In
response,
state lawmakers
passedlegislation
totake mostof the
state aidthat
goes directly
to
publiccolleges
and
give
it
directly
to
students,
including
those at
private
institutions. South
Carolina's
Republicangovernor suggests
that
publiccolleges
be allowedtobecome
private
and
get
outfrom under all state
regulations. Washington
State endorseda
plan
that
would,
for
the first
time,
allow
private colleges
to
compete
with
public
institutions for state
money
for students enrolledin
high-
demand
programs
like
nursing
and
special
education.
Recognizing
the trendfor all
publiccolleges
anduniversi-
ties,
the
president
of the
University
of Colorado
system
told
the Chronicle
of Higher
Educationin
2004,
"We are facedwiththe endto
publichigher
educationin
Colorado."
Free
Higher
Education
This state of affairs is
unacceptable
andanaffrontto
any
reasonable
notionof afair anddemocraticsoci-
ety.
We believe thatthe
appropriate
response
is to
articulate,
andmobilize
in
supportof,
aclear visionof how a
fair and
justsociety
should
provide
access to
higher
education. We
pro-
pose
thatall
academically qualified
students whodesire aneducation
shouldbe able to
get
one
-
without
constraint
by
costor the needto
amass
crippling
debt. We believe this
proposal crystallizes
a
clear, simple
vision. Anditis notoutside the
polit-
ical mainstream.
MostAmericans believe thatacol-
lege
educationhas become as
important
as a
high
school
diplo-
mausedtobe in
attaining
the AmericanDream. Unlike other
neededsocial
programs,
suchas national health
care,
free
high-
er educationdoes not
require
massive amounts of
money
or
the creationof a
huge
new
bureaucracy.
Currenttuitionand
fees for all students now enrolled
-
full and
part
time
-
in
public
two- and
four-year colleges
anduniversities total alittle more
than$30 billion. Evenif
expanded
access doubled
enrollments,
only
$60 billionof
publicmoney
wouldbe
required.
This
expense
could
easily
be covered
by closing
some
corporate
tax
loopholes, eliminating
some tax cuts tothe
very wealthy,
or
taking
aslice from the $400 billiondefense
budget.
Makingpublichigher
educationfree is not
only
the
right,
rational,
and
justthing
todo. Itis alsoa
goal
thatcanbe won
inthe foreseeable future. We
urge
AAUP members tocontact
the Collective
BargainingCongress
or tovisitthe
campaign's
Web site
-
www.freehighered.org
-
for further information
aboutthe
campaign
andhow to
get
involved. &
Note
1 . For
examples
of the
proposals,
see Mark Dudzicand
AdolphReed,
Jr.,
"Free
Higher
Ed!" The
Nation, February 23,
2004.
JULY-AUGUST
2004 43
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.200 on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:42:50 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions