The private sector of higher education is under attack from all directions. Are the attacks deserved?

As reported on this Blog in past postings:

1.  The for-profit portion of the private sector is being gutted by the U.S. Department of Education.  Witness the recent demise of ITT and Corinthian Colleges.

2.  Small to medium sized private non-profit colleges and universities, which are tuition dependent, are facing a fiscal crisis, driven by declining enrollments and deepening tuition discounts.

And now even the wealthiest players in the not-for-profit sector are facing serious, though hardly existential, challenges.

A case in point is Princeton University, which has agreed to pay millions of dollars to settle a challenge by neighborhood taxpayers to its tax-exempt status.  The settlement was announced a few days ago.  Here's what the university had to say:

Princeton University will help lower-income Princeton residents pay their property tax bills under a settlement agreement that ends the litigation challenging the University's property tax exemptions. The litigation had been scheduled for trial beginning October 17.
Under the agreement, the University will contribute $2 million in 2017 and then $1.6 million a year for the following five years to a fund that will distribute annual payments to Princeton homeowners who received a homestead benefit under the New Jersey Homestead Property Tax Credit Act. The 2017 distributions will establish a maximum amount per household and any excess after making all eligible distributions will be donated to 101: Inc., a non-profit organization that provides need-based scholarships for graduates of Princeton High School attending post-secondary educational institutions other than Princeton University.
In addition, the University will make three contributions of $416,700 to the Witherspoon Jackson Development Corporation, annually from 2017 through 2019. The Witherspoon Jackson Development Corporation is a non-profit entity, and the funds are to be used to aid and facilitate housing and related needs of economically disadvantaged residents in the Witherspoon Jackson neighborhood and elsewhere in Princeton.
The University also agreed to make a $3,480,000 annual voluntary contribution to the town of Princeton in 2021 and again in 2022, the same amount it is scheduled to contribute in 2020, the final year of the University's current seven-year agreement with the municipality.
"Princeton University cares deeply about preserving the diversity of the Princeton community, and the contributions we have agreed to make will help to achieve that," said Princeton President Christopher L. Eisgruber. "We have a long history of contributing to the well-being of our community, not only through our annual unrestricted contributions and targeted contributions for affordable housing, the schools and the library, and community services of various kinds, but in the educational, cultural and other opportunities we provide to members of the community.
"We had every confidence that the courts ultimately would have affirmed the University's continuing eligibility for property tax exemption on buildings and facilities that support its educational, research and service missions, but we concluded that the contributions we will make under the settlement agreement are a better expenditure of funds than continuing to incur the considerable costs of litigation," he said.

Under the agreement between the plaintiffs and the University, the plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their pending complaints for tax years 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2016. The plaintiffs acknowledged that the agreement "is not to be construed as an admission that any of the University's exempt property should be subject to taxation," and they agreed that the settlement "aligns with the University's commitment to supporting the affordability and socioeconomic diversity of the Princeton community."

Putting the best possible face on the capitulation, the press release is posted under a headline proclaiming assistance to low-income homeowners.

In the face of this assault, those of us working in the private sector of higher education need to 'fess up to some hard truths:

1.  Many for-profit players in the higher ed scramble for students have abused their access to federal loans to exploit both the students and Uncle Sam.

2.  Small and medium sized private colleges have allowed their budgets and tuitions to blossom far ahead of national inflation rates, pricing themselves out of the reach of many families.

3.  The big R1 universities certainly do walk and quack like their for-profit corporate counterparts.

The major "correction" that seems to be occurring in our sector of the higher ed "industry"  may be a necessary purgative.  But necessary or not, it is painful, and will become more so.

Why isn't $22 per hour enough?

For the past two weeks, dining hall workers at Harvard University have been on strike.  Reportedly, their average hourly wage rate is $22.  They and their union want to make that $24.

Harvard makes a tempting target.  With a $35 billion endowment, the nation's most prestigious university appears to be able to pay pretty much any rate the strikers can force upon it.

The strikes have the support of SLAM, the Student Labor Action Movement.  SLAM points out that an assistant professor at Harvard earns about $144,000 on average, almost double the national average for faculty at that rank.

Harvard counters that the dining hall employees make substantially more than Cambridge's $15 minimum wage.  And the school's proposal to raise health insurance contributions would be the first such boost since 2008.

In a sense, the Harvard labor dispute is a microcosm of the disparities in the American economy at large.  The rich keep getting richer.  The poor take what they can wrest from the rich.  In professional sports, it's the difference between the quarterback and hot dog vendor.  In corporate America it's the gap between the CEO and the stiffs on the shop floor.  At Harvard it's the administrators and faculty v. the blue collar workers.  Market justice says that the former get the lions' share while the latter get the crumbs... albeit, larger-than-average crumbs at Harvard.  Social justice, ala SLAM, suggests a more equitable division of the wealth despite market forces.

It's an age old issue that Robert Lane, a political scientist at another pretty rich school, Yale, outlined masterfully in his book "Market Justice, Political Justice," way back in 1985.  And to a large extent, it's what this year's national election is all about, too.

Is income-based repayment the answer to the student-loan issue?

Donald Trump seems to think so, according to a speech he gave last week in Ohio.  Clinton, too, has given indications she would support such an approach.  Under Trump's plan, no one would pay more than 12.5% of her income toward loan repayment and eventually the remainder would get forgiven.

So... back in the 1960s, student loans were still labeled National Defense Loans, as the Cold War proceeded in full flame in Vietnam and elsewhere.  I ran up $3000 in debt as I majored in Phi Kappa Psi at Franklin & Marshall College.  Then began a long deferment.

First, I was in the Coast Guard for four years and not required to make any payments.  Then, while working at Case Western Reserve as communication director, I also took took two graduate courses a semester, sufficient to continue deferring repayment of the three large.

And then I was off to law school for three years of full-time study.  Not only was the loan again eligible for a deferment, but I collected my VA education benefits to boot.

Only after leaving law school in 1981 --- 14 years after graduating from F&M --- did I finally commence repaying the loan.

Many others had similar experiences.  If memory serves me, those who entered K-12 teaching got portions of their loans forgiven, not merely deferred, up to perhaps half the total obligation.

My point, I guess, is that there have always been ways in which college grads could get some loan relief.  Back in my day, the deferments and deductions were targeting at public-policy goals, such as making it easier to serve in the armed forces or encouraging young people to teach.

Whether relief based on the relative success or failure of the individual alum is the best policy to pursue today may be a matter for debate.  And no doubt, no matter who wins next months election, that debate will take place.

Trump finally talked about higher education.

According to a commentary in the Chronicle of Higher Education, his main points were:

1.  Student-loan repayments should be pegged to graduates' income.

2.  Regulatory bloat out of Washington is helping to increase the cost of college.

3.  He doesn't like all the political correctness on college campuses (what a surprise there).

4.  He thinks that perhaps massive endowments ought not to be tax exempt.

Meanwhile, Liberty University's President Jerry Falwell must really be feeling the heat, as he reportedly stands by his endorsement of Trump in the face of recent revelations of alleged sexual assaults by the candidate.  Falwell is quoted as saying that Trump earlier assured him he'd do nothing to embarrass the scion of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, Sr.  So much for that promise.

Concerning political correctness, here's what the story reports:

Not surprisingly, Mr. Trump is no fan of political correctness on campus. "In the past few decades, political correctness — oh, what a terrible term — has transformed our institutions of higher education from ones that fostered spirited debate to a place of extreme censorship, where students are silenced for the smallest of things," he said. "You say a word somewhat differently, and all of a sudden you’re criticized — sometimes viciously. We will end the political correctness and foster free and respectful dialogue."

Well, we can have little doubt that political correctness will go the way of the passenger pigeon, if Donald Trump moves into the White House next January.  We may even get a mandate from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to rescind our sexual harassment/sexual assault policies... especially if the new president ever intends to venture onto any college campuses.

Bob Dylan has won the Nobel Prize for literature.

Yes, I know this is off point from this blog's stated purpose.  Burt when I read this morning that Dylan had won, I just had to say a word or two.

I can recall the precise evening on which I was introduced to Bob Dylan's work.  It was the Friday night of Homecoming Weekend at Franklin & Marshall College, October 1965.  I and a new friend, Bob Hicks, went together to see Woody Allen's stand-up comedy routine in Mayser Gymnasium.  In those days, every big name on the college-concert circuit stopped at F&M.

After Allen's performance, Bob and I went to his dorm room, where we shared a bottle of Christian Brothers brandy.  Bob brought out "Bringing It All Back Home,", which had just been released in March.  The album features "Mr. Tambourine Man," "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleedin')", and "Gates of Eden."  Hearing that album --- more than once --- that night can fairly be called the first transformative moment of my college years.

Just imagine, if you will: Woody Allen and Bob Dylan both in one night.

A lot is being said about Bruce Springsteen, as he turns 67, issues an autobiography and a new CD, and comes off a tour of record-breaking long concerts.  Springsteen owes a debt toe Dylan, as a quick listen to "Blinded by the Light" clearly confirms.  And as much as I love the Boss, Dylan soars above him --- and pretty much every other singer-songwriter of the second half of the 20th century, including Leonard Cohen and Paul Simon.

Of course, Dylan doesn't need me --- or even the Nobel committee --- to prove his greatness and a poet and minstrel.  He's won all the big prizes now: Oscar, Grammy, even the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  (Did he really have to wear shades when Obama put it around his neck?)  His legacy is established and I predict it will be lasting... as is the case with the other great poets of our species, among whose ranks he has earned his place.

Speaking personally, it's impossible to express or explain how much his music has meant to me down the decades from that first boozy evening of good Dylan and bad brandy in Bob Hicks's dorm room. Suffice to say that I've helped make the man rich by buying much of his music.  And although I like a lot of his 21st century work, my vinyl versions of "Highway 61 Revisited" and "Blonde on Blonde" still take their spins on my turntable with regularity.

Should we teach our students about dealing with death?

I heard on NPR this morning that New Jersey may become the sixth state in the nation to permit physician-assisted suicide.  Coincidentally, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran an essay yesterday on whether we should be teaching our students how to confront this inevitability.

Assisted suicide once seemed like sci fi stuff.  The old Charlton Heston film, Soylent Green, comes to my mind.  Here's the scene in which Sol (Edward G. Robinson, himself not long for this life) chooses this way out.

Meanwhile, there are those who are attempting to cheat death.  For instance, there's the Alcor Life Extension Foundation.

"The Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the world leader in cryonics, cryonics research, and cryonics technology. Cryonics is the science of using ultra-cold temperature to preserve human life with the intent of restoring good health when technology becomes available to do so. Alcor is a non-profit organization located in Scottsdale, Arizona, founded in 1972."

Then there's the young Russian billionaire seeking immortality by melding his mind with a computer. 

"Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov has ambitious plans that involve the blending of human consciousness into a computer. Concerned that he will be dead by the 2050s, Dmitry wishes to live on forever by uploading his brain into a computer and achieving the state of 'cybernetic immortality'. 

After achieving fame in the field of internet media, Dmitri founded the 2045 initiative where he has a team of scientists working relentlessly to develop cybernetic immortality over the next few decades."

These ideas may one day work.  Consider what that might mean.

So you are frozen, later to be awakened and restored to life.  Will your loved ones be old?  Will they even be alive?  

Or suppose you are Dmitry the Billionaire, now resident in a computer or a robot or some such silicone brain.  I think you would have to be a very cold fish indeed to relish that existence over oblivion.

So much of what we do --- whether we are hedonists or workaholics --- is aimed at putting death to one side.  Both obsessions are in the final analysis distractions.  Someone once asked Woody Allen --- my favorite philosopher --- if he hoped to achieve immortality through his films.  He reportedly replied he hoped to cheat death by not dying.  Shakespeare might retort, "We owe God a death.  He who pays this year is quit for the next."

In this age of assisted suicide and the potential for some sort of "immortality," so many ethical and practical issues confront us.   One practical question is, will your life insurance carrier pay up, if you choose assisted suicide?  Will it make a difference that you are doomed and only seeking not to prolong the agony, as opposed to choosing the option because you are just plain tired of life?

On the ethical side, is it just that some few will be able to cheat God of what Shakespeare says God is owed?  If there is an intelligence behind the universe, does that Being give two hoots about what any of us does?  

There's a pretty good college course in there somewhere.  But I'm not sure we could fill the class. 

A union resurgence in the not-for-profit arena?

This semester I'm teaching an honors course called "Law and the Arts."  During yesterday's class, my co-instructor and I diverted from our syllabus to spend an hour on unions in the non-profit world.  The impetus was the brief strike by the Philadelphia Orchestra last weekend, which resulted in the canceling of two or three scheduled performances of Mozart's Mass.

Our students were surprised to learn that the contract minimum salary for Philly Orchestra musicians is $128K and change.  That might sound like a lot until you know that the Boston Symphony minimum tops $150K, as is the case out in Los Angeles as well.  Since the Philly band is among the five best in the nation, I assume any member is at the top of her/his game.  So getting paid about what a full professor makes at a typical private university hardly seems extravagant.

The really interesting part of the story is not the player's salaries but the fact that they were willing to walk in the middle of such an important engagement.  We have seen professional athletes go on strike.  And also Broadway musicians and Hollywood writers.  But all these folks play for profit seeking employers.  Typically employees in the non-profit world are expected to suck it up.  But, of course, this is Philadelphia.

Some might wonder why employees of non-profits would even think they need a union.  Here's the answer of the Service Employees International Union:

"You can like your boss and still have a union. You can believe in your organization and still have a union. Forming a union is not a statement about who runs your organization and how they do it. When unions and management negotiate a union contract, the process allows both the staff and the management to collectively come up with the rules for the workplace. It allows there to be clear agreement on workplace topics.  We often use an interest-based bargaining process, otherwise known as win-win bargaining, to come up with our agreements. The bottom line is employees need protection, not just from the boss you have today but from the person who may be hired tomorrow."

From the other side of the table, here are some thoughts published a few years ago in the Nonprofit Quarterly:

"Is there going to be more attention directed toward unionizing nonprofit shops? Hill suggests that the declining union membership in the private sector and the privatization of unionized government functions to non-union vendors and service providers will draw attention to the roles of nonprofits. If government functions, delivered by a typically highly unionized workforce, are outsourced to a much less unionized sector—Hill says only six percent of nonprofit employees are unionized—that will show up in declining public sector union membership and increased attention from organized labor. The author suggests that because of the mission-driven nature of much of the nonprofit sector, 'nonprofit management sometimes takes advantage of employees’ desire to do good, and guilt-trips them into working long hours for low pay.'”