On February 24, 2009, during his first joint address to Congress, President Barack Obama boldly declared his goal of returning the United States to its former status as the country with the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by the year 2020 (Obama Reference Obama2009). To accomplish this feat, the nation would have to increase the number of Americans earning associate’s and bachelor’s degrees by eight million people over the following decade (US Department of Education 2011). With formidable challenges like disparities in college preparedness, the increasing cost of college education, and the growing burden of student loan debt, achieving such dramatic growth in college completion would require Herculean efforts. Nevertheless, success would promote greater social, economic, and political inclusion in society—central building blocks of full citizenship. In what follows, I consider the historical lessons that we can draw from the role that education has played in the transformation of American citizenship since the mid-twentieth century. I make the case that higher education represents a valuable mechanism for promoting equal opportunity, paying particular attention to how federal higher education policies have expanded access to first-class citizenship for women and low-income Americans. Footnote 1
Through much of the twentieth century, a high school diploma was sufficient education to promote socioeconomic security, typically securing its bearer’s position in the middle class and facilitating inclusion in social, economic, and political life. In today’s knowledge economy, however, there is a premium on higher education, and a college degree increasingly represents a crucial prerequisite to full citizenship (Goldin and Katz Reference Goldin and Katz2008). College degrees promote socioeconomic stability, as those with greater educational attainment tend to earn more money, work in more prestigious jobs, enjoy beneficial social networks, and engage in political activity at higher rates than their less educated counterparts (see, e.g., Verba, Schlozman, and Brady Reference Verba, Lehman Schlozman and Brady1995; Burns, Schlozman, and Verba Reference Burns, Lehman Schlozman and Verba2001). Moreover, higher education represents one of an increasingly limited number of mechanisms that promote upward mobility in a society where the socioeconomic status of one’s parents represents the most powerful predictor of her or his life chances (Stiglitz Reference Stiglitz2012, 17-19). Thus, higher education and lawmakers’ efforts to expand access to it have had important implications for citizenship in the United States.
Higher education policies enacted since the mid-twentieth century have had important feedback effects that promote full citizenship. Examining the political development of these programs provides crucial lessons not only for how lawmakers can continue to expand access to full citizenship but also for how they can deal with contemporary challenges like legislating in a context of political polarization and gridlock. History reveals that in the face of formidable political obstacles, taking advantage of what John Kingdon (Reference Kingdon2003) refers to as policy windows represents one of the most valuable approaches for passing citizenship-enhancing policies. It also shows that regulatory policy—which is a deviation from the redistributive structure of many US higher education policy precedents—represents one of the most effective tools for expanding access to college degrees and the citizenship-enhancing benefits that they often yield. As we will see, policy feedback theory offers valuable insight into how lawmakers have used higher education programs to expand access to knowledge and skills that promote first-class citizenship. While political contexts have often made it difficult to pass legislation that will expand access to higher education and institutional norms have limited equal educational opportunity, lawmakers have strategically used the occasional window of opportunity and tools like regulatory policy to accomplish these goals.
THE POLICY FEEDBACK EFFECTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION FOR CITIZENSHIP
Today, barriers to college education prevent many Americans from achieving the full social, economic, and political inclusion in society that are part and parcel of full citizenship. To address this challenge, lawmakers could consider the feedback effects that higher education policies have historically had for low-income Americans and women. The growing literature on policy feedback demonstrates that government programs have the capacity to alter citizens and reshape the political landscape (Campbell Reference Campbell2002; Hacker Reference Hacker2002; Lowi Reference Lowi1964; McDonagh Reference McDonagh2010; Mettler Reference Mettler2005; Mettler and Soss Reference Mettler and Soss2004; Pierson Reference Pierson1993; Skocpol Reference Skocpol1992; Soss Reference Soss1999; Weaver and Lerman Reference Weaver and Lerman2010). For example, public policies can increase political engagement by providing incentives that reduce the cost of participating in politics. These incentives can include cash payments, goods, and services—for example, scholarship money or admission to college. Feedback effects can also be transmitted through interpretive (or cognitive) effects, or messages that serve as a source of political learning for policy beneficiaries and the broader public. These include positive or negative interactions with government officials and agencies, as well as the messages that are conveyed by government program design.
Higher education programs provide powerful examples of how lawmakers can use social policy to empower citizens. Since the mid-nineteenth century, state and federal lawmakers have played a pivotal role in mediating access to college degrees (Garces Reference Garces2012; Goldrick-Rab et al. Reference Goldrick-Rab, Kelchen, Harris and Benson2016; Gurin et al. Reference Gurin, Dey, Hurtado and Gurin2002, 330-334; Rose Reference Rose2015; Rose Reference Rose2016). In her book Soldiers to Citizens (2005), for example, Suzanne Mettler demonstrates that the GI Bill helped to democratize higher education in the United States by helping virtually an entire generation of American men as they pursued college degrees. This support was particularly valuable to low-income veterans who would become the first in their families to earn a postsecondary degree. The education that veterans obtained using the GI Bill opened doors to lucrative jobs and facilitated entry into the professions, thus contributing to an expansion of the middle class. It also provided knowledge and skills that facilitated high levels of civic and political involvement.
By designing the GI Bill in a way that made clear veterans’ status as valued citizens and by adopting a style of program administration that facilitated smooth benefit uptake, lawmakers set a clear standard of treatment that recognized beneficiaries’ status as first-class citizens.
By designing the GI Bill in a way that made clear veterans’ status as valued citizens and by adopting a style of program administration that facilitated smooth benefit uptake, lawmakers set a clear standard of treatment that recognized beneficiaries’ status as first-class citizens. This approach to social policy design stands in stark contrast to ‘welfare’ programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which subject beneficiaries to laborious, and often humiliating, interactions with program administrators. Such programs send clear signals that beneficiaries are second-class citizens and can actually suppress the rates at which they engage in civic and political activities (Soss Reference Soss1999).
While the GI Bill provided valuable educational opportunities that promoted full citizenship for its beneficiaries, the program’s military-based eligibility requirements meant that women were largely excluded. This was particularly unfortunate because there were no broadly available public or private sources of financial aid that women interested in going to college could tap. For many families, the idea of investing in a daughter’s college education seemed a foolish one given the possibility that, upon getting married or having children, women would likely discontinue their studies or exit the labor force. This changed when lawmakers passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958. The NDEA provided the first broadly available, need-based financial aid for students. Seven years later the Higher Education Act of 1965 added additional student loan support and established the first need-based federal grants for college.
By establishing these programs, the federal government provided women with valuable resources that contributed to enhanced socioeconomic status and higher levels of political engagement. They also sent the important message that the federal government is committed to ensuring equal access to higher educational opportunity for both women and men (Rose Reference Rose2016). As these examples show, higher education policies have had important feedback effects that have been crucial in supporting first class citizenship for marginalized Americans. Such feedback effects can also shape public opinion and what citizens come to expect from the government, thereby contributing to a “locking in” of a particular style of policy (Pierson Reference Pierson1993). By fostering new ways of doing things and driving the emergence of new organized interests, public policies can make it politically costly to deviate from one policy pathway.
EXPANDING CITIZENSHIP IN THE FACE OF FORMIDABLE OBSTACLES
In recent decades, a sharply polarized political terrain and recurrent stalemate have made it increasingly difficult for lawmakers to continue the tradition of using higher education policy to achieve sweeping, citizenship-enhancing expansions in equal opportunity. Yet, the history of higher education policy development reveals a rich legacy of successfully overcoming daunting political obstacles to expand access to higher educational opportunities and, thus, to promote full citizenship (see, e.g., Rose Reference Rose2016). For example, during the 1940s and early 1950s, efforts to provide broad-reaching financial aid for college students met intense opposition. Opponents took issue with the prospect of the federal government assuming the task of funding college education for young people—a function that had traditionally been reserved for parents and other non-government actors like churches and community organizations (Anderson Reference Anderson2007). Many opponents objected that a federal student aid program would allow the government to interfere with states’ rights, particularly in cases where the receipt of funds would depend on compliance with federal requirements.
Consider, for example, the case of the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Throughout the 1940s and early 1950s, Sen. Lister Hill (D-AL) and Rep. Carl Elliott (D-AL) had unsuccessfully advocated for federal scholarship proposals that would have made college more affordable for low-income students. They faced intense opposition from conservative Republicans and their fellow Southern Democrats who vigorously objected on the grounds that the government could use the program as a Trojan horse for federal control, perhaps even gaining leverage to force school desegregation in southern states.
Although challenges like school desegregation and concerns about providing federal funds to parochial schools made government support for education a controversial prospect during the mid-twentieth century, the creation of the NDEA illustrates the value of taking advantage of policy windows to pass sweeping policy reforms. The Soviet Union’s successful launch of the Sputnik satellites in 1957 provided a window of opportunity that gave Hill’s and Elliott’s student aid idea a fighting chance. In the midst of national concern over America’s shocking loss of the space race, efforts to pinpoint the cause of the nation’s lackluster performance in science and technology soon implicated educational shortcomings as the culprit. Recognizing that the national crisis and corresponding increases in public opinion favoring government investment in education could benefit their efforts to pass a federal student aid program, Hill and Elliott strategically re-packaged their existing proposals as “The National Defense Education Act.” As they carefully marshaled the program through the political process, they traded on national anxiety over the Sputnik crisis and Cold War politics, framing student aid as integral to national security. Their masterful political entrepreneurship led to the successful passage of the NDEA, which set a new standard for American higher education policy. It also helped to expand access to full citizenship for millions of Americans by providing unprecedented support for pursuing college degrees.
REGULATORY POLICY AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF INSTITUTIONS
In addition to overcoming daunting political obstacles, lawmakers’ ability to expand access to full citizenship using social policy depends heavily on the extent to which institutions support—or at least cooperate with—that mission. Take, for example, discrimination in college admissions. By the late 1960s, the federal government provided financial aid that helped to make college affordable for both women and men. Yet, American colleges and universities routinely discriminated against women when making admissions decisions: some schools used gender quotas to limit the number of women admitted each year, while others excluded women entirely. In 1972, lawmakers passed Title IX, which prohibited sex discrimination in college admissions and contributed to important transformations on college campuses (Rose Reference Rose2015). In addition to prohibiting gender discrimination in admissions, Title IX outlawed sex discrimination in faculty hiring, sexual harassment, and unequal treatment of pregnant or parenting students. It also required that colleges and universities provide women and men with equitable access to on-campus programing, including gender egalitarian support for scholarships, athletic programs, and extracurricular activities.
The passage of Title IX demonstrated the power of regulatory policy for ending overt sex discrimination on college campuses. Moreover, the landmark regulation offers important lessons for how we can address contemporary institutional challenges like the campus sexual assault epidemic. As we have learned in the years since Title IX’s creation, the threat of revoked federal funding represents a powerful incentive for colleges and universities to alter their practices and to ensure equal experiences for members of their campus communities (Rose Reference Rose2015). In the case of campus safety and protection from sexual assault, Title IX provides a valuable legal basis on which students can base their claims for protection by universities. Increasing students’ awareness of their right to protection and providing access to information about filing Title IX complaints is one way to address this problem. Moreover, the federal government could increase penalties for institutions that fall out of compliance with Title IX on the grounds that they do not effectively handle complaints related to sexual assault and misconduct on campus. As history has shown, regulatory policy represents an effective approach for achieving institutional changes that promote college completion and provide a path to full citizenship for marginalized groups.
The question of whether to provide federal student aid to young adults who have graduated from US high schools but who are not documented citizens points to an important contemporary limit on equal access to higher educational opportunity.
Today, important demographic changes in the United States have raised new questions about access to higher educational institutions and citizenship. The question of whether to provide federal student aid to young adults who have graduated from US high schools but who are not documented citizens points to an important contemporary limit on equal access to higher educational opportunity. In addition to their unauthorized legal status, students who would gain a pathway to citizenship and become eligible for federal student loans and work-study opportunities under the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act—also known as “Dreamers”—are excluded from the higher educational opportunities that are increasingly pivotal to full citizenship. Thus, they have a great stake in whether lawmakers choose to expand access to college degrees using this program. Passing legislation that would enable these students to access federal student aid would indicate a continuing commitment to the tradition of ensuring equal access to higher educational opportunity in the United States.
CONCLUSION: EDUCATING CITIZENS
Historical analysis suggests that the feedback effects of higher education policies have played a crucial role in the transformation of citizenship in the United States. From the GI Bill to the National Defense Education Act, Higher Education Act, and Title IX, government support for higher education represents one of the most enduring and politically viable mechanisms for expanding equal opportunity and access to full citizenship. As we have seen, the political development of US higher education policy offers valuable examples of how lawmakers can take advantage of policy windows to achieve substantial social policy reform in the face of stalwart opposition. It also demonstrates how lawmakers can use regulatory policy to reshape institutions in ways that promote expanded access to full citizenship. The development of higher education policy also illustrates the connection between public opinion and policy change (see, e.g., Soroka and Wlezien Reference Soroka and Wlezien2009). When Americans focused their attention on the shortcomings of higher education in the United States, lawmakers benefited from a more favorable climate for their student aid proposals. Moreover, the creation of new student aid benefits marked significant increases in the number of citizens benefiting from federal higher education policies, thus contributing to their popularity and promoting their sustained existence. Footnote 2
The history of higher education policy provides valuable lessons that lawmakers can draw upon as they work to continue transforming access to full citizenship. It also raises important questions about higher education and the prospect of ongoing transformation. For example, higher education policy development reveals important differences in how political actors and their parties have conceptualized the government’s responsibility when it comes to expanding access to full citizenship. Eras of unified Democratic dominance in Congress have resulted in policies that offered extensive support for traditionally marginalized groups via federal financial aid and regulatory policy. Eras of congressional division or strong Republican political leadership have tended to place greater emphasis on expanding access by way of broad-reaching student loans. In recent decades, increasing concern regarding budget constraints and movement away from grants toward student loans has significantly reshaped the tenor of US higher education policy (Mettler Reference Mettler2014; Patashnik Reference Patashnik and Zelizer2004). With the increasing burden of student loan debt, is it possible that the pursuit of higher education operates in tension with economic stability—a central building block of full citizenship?
The development of federal support for higher education also raises questions about how best to tailor policy proposals in light of unique political circumstances. Is it possible to achieve even greater expansions of citizenship by focusing on other areas of education, such as pre-Kindergarten, K-12 education, or vocational training? Have increasing levels of socioeconomic inequality and the challenge of investing in citizens so that they can effectively compete in today’s globalizing economy created a new policy window that lawmakers can use to pass programs that will expand equal educational opportunity? An analytical perspective that emphasizes a long-term view of policy and political development reveals valuable lessons. The extent to which lawmakers can continue to provide access to higher educational opportunities will play a central role in determining who has access to full citizenship in the United States.
