MILWAUKEE -- I don’t have a clever lead paragraph for an essay about an oversubscribed conference on college-student hunger and homelessness in 2016 in the wealthiest nation on earth.
At last count, 130 people from California, Massachusetts, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin, among other places, had arrived here in cold, rainy Milwaukee for #RealCollege. An idea just two months ago at the Wisconsin Hope Lab, #RealCollege opened this morning at 7:45 a.m. Our plan yesterday and today is to decide what to do about hunger and homelessness in what educational leaders never hesitate to call the finest higher educational system in the world.
As I write, I don’t know where I am going to sleep tonight. The reservation I know I made wasn’t waiting at the hip Aloft Hotel last night. In the rain, I scrambled to the downtown Hilton. With a mega volleyball tournament in town, Aloft and the Hilton and Milwaukee are full tonight. How much of the conference will I miss looking for somewhere to sleep tonight? A conference on homelessness on a cold, rainy day, and I don’t have anywhere to sleep tonight? Yes, Lord. Message received.
Gathered here in a warm, dry auditorium at Milwaukee Area Technical College are the Great Lakes Education Guaranty Corporation; Century College Resource and Support Center; Single Stop, Delgado Community College; Single Stop, Bunker Hill Community College; the Association of Community College Trustees; the University of California Food Access & Security Committee; the California State University Chancellor’s Study on Servicing the Needs of Displaced and Food Insecure Students; the Center for American Progress; and Anabel’s Grocery, an organization providing “structural and short-term solutions to food insecurity at Cornell.”
The federal departments of education, agriculture and housing and urban development are here, too. Twenty-four pages for the complete list of those attending.
On my smartphone, I confirm time, date and my location. Yes, the United States of America in 2016. A downloadable tool kit for college homelessness? Can this really be true? I know the answer: yes.
Should I be screaming? None of us are. Would anyone hear if we did?
This alarming information flashes by in what anthropologists one day might study as the Conference Ritual. We don’t react to PowerPoint slides telling us that “Hungry to Learn,” a December 2015 Hope Lab study of 4,000 students at 10 community colleges, found that 20 percent were food insecure, 13 percent were homeless and 39 percent worried about becoming homeless. I don’t scream, I guess, because we already know this.
Not just me wondering -- If I can sit listening to this without screaming, am I part of the problem? We’ll see. Sara Goldrick-Rab, founder of the HOPE Lab, began the day with a slide asking, “So what are we going to do?” (Disclosure: Sara is a friend. I am here on vacation days as an expenses-paid panelist.) As a call to action, the HOPE Lab this week published “Expanding the National School Lunch Program to Higher Education.”
Fine by me. Since coming to Bunker Hill Community College 10 years ago, I’ve spent more time on hunger and food stamps than teaching College Writing I, my original plan.
College student hunger has become one of my regular topics. My first column on hunger proposed using federal work study funds to pay students to study. In the trade-offs between earning money for rent and doing homework, homework never wins. The students, I wrote, needed the money for food. WBUR’s “Here & Now” invited me for an interview.
Robin Young, the host, admitted that she hadn’t believed college students were that poor and hungry. She called around, she said, and discovered my stories were accurate, and I went on the show. The Greater Boston Food Bank was listening, and monthly deliveries of 5,000 pounds of groceries began a few weeks after the show aired. The deliveries are the third week of the month -- that’s when students’ food stamps run out.
Hunger at college. After a winter without leaving my 617 area code and my windowless basement office at Bunker Hill, with Monday to Friday bread deliveries for hungry students, this is my third trip for hunger in as many weeks.
In Washington one Friday, a day off to visit our daughter, I met with the American Council on Education and took a draft of a letter requesting a Government Accountability Office study on poverty-driven hunger for college students to U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s office in Hart Office Building.
A week later, I was back in Washington to be on the panel ”Poverty Goes to College,” the last possible meeting slot in a deserted Walter Washington Convention Center on the last day of the American Educational Research Association annual meeting. Still, as the final event, at least I knew the 15 people in the audience were not waiting for the next panel. Plus the seven of us on the panel, this was the most people in one room I’d ever been with to discuss hunger.
Now, 130 people in Milwaukee. I guess progress on a disaster is still progress.
I wish I knew, truly, why we are here at all. I see and keep repeating the simple -- to me -- logic chain. Society -- we, the people -- accept that nutrition is essential for infants, for pre-K, for elementary, middle and high school. We encourage students to earn a postsecondary credential. No one can produce evidence that low-income high school students have more income on entering college.
We, the people, stop providing lunch. (And often bus passes, too). And higher ed leaders and policy makers and wonks keep going to meetings -- Conference Rituals, (often with free lunch) about “the completion agenda” without putting hunger on the agenda. Does it take an English major to wonder?
Still raining and cold. Tonight? An email from Hotels.com just in, confirming a room a Hyatt 13 miles out of town. I’ll take it.
Tomorrow, I’m on the concluding panel to identify next steps. I’ve sat with homeless students calling full shelter after full shelter. I could pitch Shelter.org to the foundations that are here -- Gates, Kresge, William T. Grant.
“Wouldn’t work. It would just show that the shelters are always full,” said a friend who has more experience than I do.
Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead, who has served in that position for 12 years, announced Thursday that he will step down on June 30, 2017. Duke's announcement noted many efforts to improve undergraduate education, research and Duke's global programs. Brodhead also was president during the Duke lacrosse scandal in 2006, in which the university faced criticism from all sides.
Yesterday, the University of Idaho, where I am the president, accepted an invitation to join the Big Sky Conference, starting in fall 2018. The Sun Belt Conference, our current home in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Football Bowl Subdivision, elected not to renew our membership after 2017.
Faced with the option to play as an independent in FBS, awaiting conference affiliation, or join the Big Sky, a Football Championship Subdivision league where we would gain full membership, we have chosen the road that we believe positions the football program and, importantly, the entire university, for long-term success.
Some UI alumni and supporters do not agree that the FCS is our best option. Many passionate Vandals view our place in FBS as a mark of our institution’s “prestige” and “relevance.” The University of Idaho is our state’s land-grant university, the unquestioned statewide leader in higher education.
Success on the football field should complement the prestige and relevance of our academic institution. But football affiliation or performance should not define prestige and relevance. The impact of our institution should define us, as measured by the entire experience for our student body, including our athletes; by academic excellence across the university; by sustained research, scholarly activity and creative success; and by deep engagement with communities and partnerships with industry.
Why should my university's decision about what conference to play in matter to anybody outside our institution? Because I think our situation has potential implications for dozens of universities that play big-time college football and says a lot about the state of college athletics.
This is an unprecedented move in college athletics, perhaps most similar to the University of Chicago opting out of the Big Ten in 1946. But a decision needed to be made, and made now. It is the best move for our university, and for our athletics program as part of our total university experience. The University of Idaho chooses very consciously, as the University of Chicago chose so long ago, an appropriate place for its athletic programs.
The college athletics landscape faces many challenges -- litigation about use of likeness, fundamental questions about compensation of athletes, concerns about academic integrity. The enormous revenues involved in premier events like the college football playoff and the NCAA Division I basketball tournament, as well as the growing “arms race” in major college athletics, raise many questions about college athletics.
In general, we have seen a steady progression toward higher levels of expenditure and competition -- moves from Division II to Division I, from FCS to FBS, and to ever higher expenditures by premier programs.
UI moved to the FBS level 20 years ago. Since then, we have been affiliated with four different conferences and competed as an independent. And in that time, college football expenditures have increased, and rules, such as the full cost of attendance and the number of teams required for a championship, have changed. These changes should motivate other higher education institutions to reconsider the important role of athletics.
The University of Idaho has been one of the lowest-resourced athletics programs competing at the FBS level. Despite two bowl appearances in our 20 years of FBS competition, we have had very limited success on the football field, while we have had considerable success in other sports.
Nonrenewal in the Sun Belt caused us to consider how we could continue successfully in FBS football. Nonrenewal also caused us to focus on what motivates us to participate in college athletics. Our conclusion was athletics improves UI’s visibility and provides a great shared experience for fans and students as well as opportunity and valuable experience for our student-athletes.
First, we considered whether we could compete as an independent, which we did in 2013. Few, including our fans, would argue that an independent schedule suits an institution our size in a small media market with a limited national reputation. Competing as an independent would not allow Idaho to develop rivalries; independent schedules change yearly. Recruiting to such uncertainty would be difficult. To replace lost conference revenue, Idaho would have had to play three guarantee games, in which powerhouse teams pay big fees to other teams to travel to play them. Neither the student-athlete nor the fan experience seemed desirable as an independent.
Our second consideration was seeking affiliation with a Group of 5 conference other than the Sun Belt. The Group of 5 are the five smaller, nonautonomous conferences (in contrast to the so-called Power 5 conferences): American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference. Most made little geographic sense or offered no traditional rivalries for us. Initial inquiries revealed little receptivity; conferences wondered why they would bring in a team with limited competitive success and no other clear ties.
Nevertheless, should we pursue conference affiliation, which conference makes geographic and institutional sense and what financial resources would be required to make us competitive in Group of 5 football? From a geographic perspective, the Mountain West Conference would be most desirable, but the average expenditures in that league, $38 million, are twice that of Idaho at $19 million, and literally price us out.
More typical Group of 5 expenditures, such as $29 million in the Mid-American Conference or Conference USA, still far exceed those at Idaho. In contrast, Idaho athletic expenditures are typical of Big Sky schools. Our expenditures are already subsidized by our students (though to a lesser extent than at many universities), and that subsidy is limited by our State Board of Education. Should we commit to major additional expenditures from students or donors in order to seek uncertain affiliation?
As president, I asked: At what cost, FBS? We must consider the role of athletics in the institutionwide context. Athletics complements higher education in many ways. Athletes can excel in competition, succeed as students and grow as leaders. Gallup data, for example, suggest that many college athletes are prized by employers for their ability to focus and follow through on tasks and responsibilities.
All of these qualities will be nurtured in the Big Sky Conference -- as they are for participants in that conference from our other sports, such as our conference champion (and NCAA Tournament participant) women’s basketball team. If the benefits to student-athletes continue, if our fans can enjoy realistic competition, why should we continue in the FBS arms race simply to chase a small share of the revenue now accruing to Group of 5 universities from the college football playoff? Instead, we will plan for success as an FCS affiliate.
This is a reset for our football program. We believe Big Sky football will be positive for our athletes and position them to succeed on the field -- our head football coach and I expect Idaho to compete for an FCS championship in 2018. I think our fans will benefit immensely, with opportunities to cultivate meaningful regional rivalries with similar institutions, many within a day’s drive.
We can and will create an outstanding student-athlete and communitywide experience around our program, a vibrant football culture that is a great front porch for Idaho’s leading, national research university, a draw for future students and a continued source of pride for current students. And we can do it in a way that does not constrain the university and does not distract from our core mission.
Idaho chooses to leave the football arms race and focus on excellence in competition and academics. I expect success in football in the coming years, as we conclude our Sun Belt participation and find sustained excellence in the Big Sky Conference. We will tell that story near and far. But the impact of our institution is best represented by our 100,000 proud and passionate alumni whose lives were transformed by the experiences they had at the University of Idaho.
Three weeks after the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Division I Council voted to ban Football Bowl Subdivision coaches from hosting or participating in camps and clinics located away from their campuses, the Division I Board of Directors has reversed the new rule.
Historically, the NCAA said, “coaches used camps and clinics primarily to provide skill instruction to young people and generate revenue.” While official recruiting activities are not allowed at the camps, they are increasingly viewed as a recruiting tool. The Division I Council voted to ban the so-called satellite camps after the University of Michigan’s head football coach, Jim Harbaugh, rankled rival coaches and commissioners in other conferences by attending camps near their institutions last year.
The rule change was praised by officials in those leagues, in particular the Southeastern Conference, which already had a rule barring its own members from taking part in the camps. Critics, however, argued it was unfair to limit unrecruited athletes’ opportunities to be discovered by college coaches. Last week, USA Today reported that the U.S. Department of Justice was looking into whether the ban was legal.
“The Board of Directors is interested in a holistic review of the football recruiting environment, and camps are a piece of that puzzle,” Harris Pastides, president of the University of South Carolina and the board’s chair, said in a statement. “We share the council’s interest in improving the camp environment, and we support the council’s efforts to create a model that emphasizes the scholastic environment as an appropriate place for recruiting future student-athletes.”
Prompted by recent laws permitting discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in places like North Carolina, the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Board of Governors on Wednesday adopted new antidiscrimination policies for sites hosting major NCAA championship events, such as the men’s basketball Final Four.
“The higher education community is a diverse mix of people from different racial, ethnic, religious and sexual orientation backgrounds,” Kirk Schulz, president of Kansas State University and chair of the Board of Governors, said in a statement. “So it is important that we assure that community -- including our student-athletes and fans -- will always enjoy the experience of competing and watching at NCAA championships without concerns of discrimination.”
The NCAA has recently come under fire from LGBT rights groups for not taking so strong a stance against anti-LGBT policies among its own members, including at religious institutions that have received waivers allowing them to discriminate against transgender students.
George Mason University’s plan to rename its law school after Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice, is once again under fire. But this time the criticism is more substantive than the unfortunate acronym resulting from the Antonin Scalia School of Law, ASSOL (that controversy ended in a tweaking -- while the official name will remain the same, the school will be referred to as the Antonin Scalia Law School). The university’s Faculty Senate on Wednesday voted 21-13 to approve a resolution calling into question Scalia’s legacy on decisions involving historically marginalized groups -- echoing similar discussions at Georgetown University in the wake of Scalia’s death -- and the $30 million in funding behind the name change, $10 million of which comes from the conservative Charles Koch Foundation.
“The senate recognizes that the gifts provide $30 million in scholarship support for law students and memorialize Justice Scalia’s many years of public service and his intellectual contributions to jurisprudence,” reads the resolution. At the same time, it says, the senate finds problematic “the celebration of a Supreme Court justice who made numerous public offensive comments about various groups -- including people of color, women and [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer] individuals -- which this university has appropriately gone to some lengths to embrace as valued parts of the university community.” Also troubling to the senate, according to the resolution, is “the reinforcement of the external branding of the university as a conservative institution rather than an unaligned body that is a comfortable home for individuals with a variety of viewpoints.”
The faculty resolution accuses university leaders of not being forthcoming about the terms of the funding agreement and how George Mason will financially honor those terms after the initial funding period expires. The resolution urges the George Mason’s Board of Visitors and administration to “underscore the university’s support for civil discourse that bridges the great diversity present” on campus and “highlight to external audiences that the university is not aligned with any single ideological position and is a friendly home to faculty, staff, students and others with diverse points of view,” among other things. The resolution also calls on George Mason to “explain more fully the university’s plan to manage its responsibility for future funding of new law school faculty and centers without detriment to other units in the university” and “commit to honest, open communication with faculty and other university stakeholders.”
A university spokesperson did not provide immediate comment. Suzanne Slayden, a professor of chemistry and Faculty Senate parliamentarian and chair of the body’s Academic Policies Committee, said the day’s resolution did not formally oppose the Scalia name, but that such proposals will be introduced at the senate’s next meeting.
Dozens of faculty and staff members already have signed a separate letter condemning the decision to make Scalia synonymous with George Mason’s law school. “The values that Scalia affirmed from the bench do not reflect the values of our campus community,” the letter says. “Further, the renaming decision was made without regard for faculty, staff and student input and consent.”