Bok Leads Higher Education into Battle

Presidential election years sometimes spark renewed activism and idealism in the electorate. Nowhere is this more true than in the offices of some of Harvard's top administrators.

During the Reagan Administration, the once divine image of higher education has deteriorated rapidly. Consevative critics, led by Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, have attacked colleges and universities for their high costs, their poor teaching and their arrogance. The White House has followed word with deed by consistently proposing high cuts in higher education programs.

But in the last year, President Bok has led a remarkable effort to take the initiative for educational reform away from such critics. Last July, in a speech delivered before a national conference of more than 500 educators, Bok called for a new partnership between universities, government and industry.

Bok's speech marked a turning point in how higher education viewed its roles in society. He expressed a growing determination among universities to become involved as institutions in solving the nation's problems. Under his plan, Bok would use universities' expertise and resources to rebuild American economic competitiveness, foster equal opportunity for minorities, improve the quality of life and strengthen moral standards.

Harvard Leads an Activist Charge

Bok and Harvard have been instrumental in prodding the unwieldy higher education establishment into action. Sitting around at an NCAA presidents' conference several years ago, Bok became engrossed in a conversation with William C. Friday, President Emeritus of the University of North Carolina, about the roles universities could play in bettering society.

This fall, the talks reached their timely fruition in the publication of the controversial Friday Commission report. The commission, which included 31 of the nation's foremost leaders in higher education, industry and labor, expanded on Bok's ideas. Entitled "A Memorandum to the 41st President of the United States", the report called on the next president to restore the close partnership that once existed between the federal government and higher education.

The report also urged the future president to increase federal grants for student financial aid, provide incentives for research to help restore economic competitiveness and fund international studies programs.

Friday, Bok and the commission received nationwide attention, as educators emphasized that the report marked the first time higher education had become directly involved in a presidential election. The day of the report's release, commission officials briefed presidential candidate Sen. Paul Simon (D.-Ill.), a long-time supporter of education. Friday and other members also met with Vice President George Bush a few weeks ago, while President Bok will soon discuss the report with Democratic front-runner Michael S. Dukakis.

The report galvanized educators, who said it would put education on the forefront of every candidate's agenda. Harvard officials, especially Vice President for Government and Community Affairs John Shattuck, were instrumental in formulating, writing and publicizing the report.

Predictably, administration officials and many editorial writers blasted it, saying that it represented nothing new from the education establishment. William Kristol, Secretary Bennett's chief of staff and a former Kennedy School professor, denounced the report as a mere "wish list" that sought "more money to pay for more programs."

Kristol's criticism "misses the whole point and proves the validness of the document," Friday says. "It's not a partisan document, and we did not choose sides."

The purpose of the report was "to create a more positive attitude towards what needs to be done," Friday says. "We felt we were morally bound to speak out."

Spreading the Good News

While education has taken a back seat in previous election years to more traditional domestic issues, voter concern about potential economic decline, equal opportunity, and the quality of life have propelled it to the forefront of every candidate's agenda this year.

"I think it is very real as an issue in the presidential campaign," Vice President for Government and Community Affairs John Shattuck says. "There's no question that the electorate is recognizing the importance of education."

Educators say that the Friday Commission's report has had a significant impact in putting education at the top of the candidates' agenda. They argue that the report has set the terms of the education debate this year, forcing the presidential candidates to come up with specifics instead of rhetoric, and putting conservative critics on the defensive.

"The impact [of the report] is fairly subtle and can be measured [by] to what extent it informs the policymakers" for the Dukakis and Bush campaigns, says Robert Atwell, president of the American Council of Education. "I have no doubt that it [the Friday report] will have an impact on [Bush's] subsequent pronouncements."

"Our objective has been all along to inform the next president," says Charles Saunders, ACE vice president for governmental relations. "I think the Friday Commission has helped shape the frames of reference and the parameters" of the debate over education.

"Dukakis is also rethinking his positions on education," Saunders says. "It's a long educational process with the candidates."

Pointing to the lack of American competitiveness in international trade and the troubling decline in minority enrollment in the nation's colleges and universities, education officials say that America must now renew its committment to education.

Higher education, they say, is the gateway to future opportunity in employment, and thus the federal government must increase expenditures on all forms of student aid to ensure equal access for all. "Education is a metaphor for a lot of the challenges facing the country," Shattuck says.

"The need is as great as that document indicates, if not greater," Friday says. "The cutbacks [in education] have been very costly for America."

"We're talking about very substantial expenditures" that are needed for education, Friday says. "The tragedy of it is that nobody's been saying these things before."

"We obviously have an interest in advancing that belief [that education is a national priority]," Atwell says.

Two Can Play That Game

Presidential election concerns not only moved universities to action, but the Reagan administration as well. Ending seven years of bitter battles with universities on Capitol Hill, Secretary Bennett announced over the summer that the administration was abandoning its attempts to drastically reduce funding for crucial financial aid programs. The Administration then submitted a budget in February calling for major increases in education funding and most types of student aid.

"It took seven years, but it looks like the President has finally submitted a budget request we can live with," says Sen. Robert Stafford (R.-Vt.), ranking minority member of the Senate's Subcommittee on Education. The Administration's proposed budget, Stafford says in February, "represents a major shift in policy."

Education Department spokesman Loye Miller admitted that this dramatic turn-around in policy was aimed at helping Bush in the upcoming national elections. Bennett also believed his ideas were being ignored by Congress because of the its hostility toward his budget cuts, Miller says.

Suddenly, the traditionally stormy budget process in Congress had become an unusually mild and tranquil one. The House and Senate passed budget resolutions that differed only slightly from the administration's requests.

Meanwhile, educators agree that the Friday report's powerful argument and its widespread acceptance by the presidential candidates has made it difficult, if not impossible, for the next president or the Congress to call for the deep cuts formerly advocated by Bennett.

"It's been called to the attention of all members of Congress," Saunders says. "I'm sure it's helped [in the budget process]."

"It's become clear to Congress that it's very important to support education programs," Shattuck says. The Friday Commission's report "took the whole approach [of calling for cuts] off the table."