Late Friday night, the U.S. House leadership fought to cut financial aid for some nine million college students, including almost 700 of our peers at Tufts. As a small group of legislators and aides met on the fourth floor of the Capitol to negotiate a final budget proposal for this year, the fate of financial aid hung in the balance.
As one of many cuts to next year's budget, the House proposed slashing need−based Pell grants by 15 percent. The proposal would also have completely eliminated the Federal Supplementary Educational Opportunity Grant program, which provides additional assistance to many students at Tufts and nationwide.
Financial aid and other education programs were largely preserved in those negotiations, but another fight is brewing. Last week, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R−Wis.) introduced his budget proposal for 2012.
Ryan's plan would reduce every Pell recipient's maximum award by over $800 annually, and many would lose their eligibility all together. Even those who remain eligible might be forced to drop out if they can't afford the $3,200 cut in their total financial aid.
In addition to hurting current students, this policy would hinder the collegiate dreams of the recently admitted class of 2015, as well as other future students who would follow them into the halls of higher education.
Our nation is firmly invested in the notion of universal access to primary and secondary education, but a high school diploma does not carry the weight it once did. Access to higher education should also be available to all who are willing to work for it, regardless of financial background.
American higher education is a model for the world. But our economy cannot thrive if deserving students cannot enroll. Investments in education strengthen our economy in the long run and help us compete in a global market. In order to secure our economic recovery, the United States must ensure that college education is accessible to those demonstrating intelligence and effort, not merely to those born to privileged households.
Congress does need to work toward reducing the deficit. But Ryan's dramatic reductions in financial aid would attempt to balance the budget on the backs of young Americans, even while reducing taxes for the wealthy. Congress should not pay for tax cuts by hurting our competiveness or by downsizing programs that help working students and families.
There are other options for cutting spending while promoting better education. For−profit colleges land about a quarter of all Pell grants, even with substantially lower graduation rates than their nonprofit peers. Those companies shouldn't be allowed to pocket taxpayer money without doing more to help their students earn a diploma. Tying grants to student progress toward graduation is a solid proposal.
In a March 24 letter, University President Lawrence Bacow urged U.S. Senators John Kerry (D−Mass.) and Scott Brown (R−Mass.) to fight for both of these vital programs. We hope the student body will follow his lead by imploring their representatives in Congress to seriously consider the tragic impact of the proposed cuts.
Senators Kerry and Brown have both shown leadership in the budget debate. Most notably, Brown admirably rejected his party's call to defund Planned Parenthood. We implore both our senators to continue that leadership by vigorously working to preserve financial aid programs.
A society is measured not only by the quality of its education system, but by the accessibility of that education to students of all backgrounds. The House's proposed cuts would make higher learning a privilege restricted to the affluent. Such a system is fundamentally undemocratic.
--
