Steve Moye, associate vice president for public affairs, and I attended a recent seminar in Washington, D.C., titled "Involving Alumni, Trustees and Friends in Making the Case for Higher Education," where Association of American Universities President Cornelious J. Pings characterized an enigma currently facing higher education. Colleges and universities in America are a $200 billion to $300 billion industry. They train the leadership, not only of this country, but of many countries around the world, thus constituting one of the most important export industries of the United States. Yet higher education is not very well understood; it is often criticized, and is struggling against efforts in Congress, the state houses and elsewhere, to severely restrain its resources and limit its voice.
In his remarks at the conference, Pings referred to an American Council on Education study conducted a few months ago by James Harvey and Associates of Washington, D.C., which showed that members of the general population expressed strong support for higher education, but showed very little specific understanding of the academy or how a university operates, most notably the research enterprises.
On the other hand, community leaders knew a great deal about the particulars of colleges and universities, as well as their research programs, but were quick to find fault. Pings, from his own experience traveling around the country, noted that alumni are supportive, but highly uninformed about their alma maters. "They seem to know only the slice of the institution that existed during those years they were in attendance." Pings suggested that business leaders, who by virtue of their vantage points as trustees--as well as alumni--should become better informed about federal issues affecting higher education, and take a more active role in providing leadership and advocacy on behalf of their institutions.
The University of California System, to describe what some universities are doing to defend themselves, is going to great lengths to involve their alumni and trustees more effectively in "advocating" for their campuses. The purpose of their new "Advocacy Network," according to Mark Hooper, a University of California System presenter at the conference, is to support and achieve the university's state and federal legislative, budgetary and electoral objectives. Support is mobilized from alumni and foundation advocates, regents, political and community leaders, students, parents and faculty. Advocacy actions include: 1) personal visits, calls and letters targeted to: the governor, legislative leaders, key committee members and campus area legislators; 2) ballot measure information distribution; and 3) writing letters to the editor and opinion editorials. Documents listing "guidelines for activating the network," lists of key lawmakers, an "early warning system" of tracking pending legislation, and issues papers known as "one-pagers" have been prepared in support of the advocacy program.
As these strategies are being implemented in California and elsewhere, the Istook amendment would seek to restrain or limit the nonprofit sector, universities included, from any form of persuasion of legislators by organizations that receive federal funding. The proposed amendment will impose a complicated new set of reporting rules on most universities and other nonprofits.
"Political advocacy" would be outlawed, even when organizations use their own money in these efforts. The definition of political advocacy spelled out in the amendment covers not only lobbying per se, but most contacts with legislators and regulators at the federal, state and local levels. Many more activities now routinely undertaken in support of grants would come under the reporting requirements and add significantly to the reporting and record keeping responsibilities of faculty grant seekers and grant managers. Even professional journal articles and papers by faculty on a wide range of public policy topics could be limited. Organizations that violate these rules would be subject to losing their eligibility for federal grants for five years.
According to Moye, there is no question that the Istook Amendment, if passed, will severely chill a university's ability to speak out on issues of major concern--a point of agreement among university public affairs and public relations officials, including this one, attending the seminar.
None of this is to suggest that Emory needs to undertake lobbying and advocacy techniques and strategies to the same extent as California and others. However, the days are over when universities could more or less ignore federal threats to issues such as student aid and research because the programs and funding were immutable parts of education policy and academic research. I am suggesting that Emory has a story to tell, that we do suffer from the generally negative language now in vogue describing problems of the academy, and that our students, faculty and programs may well be threatened by this climate of criticism and cutbacks.
We are well advised to adopt the best communication techniques of what we see in other institutions' experiences. The Istook Amendment notwithstanding, we must creatively apply our own intelligence to the continuing advancement of Emory by making sure we find ways to enlist the political support of all of our constituents.
Curt Carlson is associate vice president for University Relations.