What the 2018 Election Means for Higher Education
When the 116th Congress is seated in January, political control will be divided, with Democrats holding a majority in the House and Republicans in the Senate. What does this mean for higher education? We asked a few NAS members to weigh in.
What does the 2018 election portend for higher education? The question might be reframed this way: having lost their majority in the House of Representatives, what can Republican lawmakers expect to accomplish in the field of higher education between 2018 and 2020? The answer, in short, is “not much.” So long, for now, to the PROSPER Act and the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Perhaps with some experience in Congress, however, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will learn what makes up our three branches of government—a minor gain for education in this country, but a gain nonetheless.
One promising development involves the Department of Education’s proposed Title IX guidelines that would amend rules regarding sexual-assault adjudications on college campuses to restore certain due-process rights of the accused. These guidelines have now entered a 60-day period of public comment; if they are adopted, they will go into effect in 2020.
Will Betsy DeVos remain the Secretary of the Department of Education through 2020? Given the number of dismissals and resignations among President Donald Trump’s political appointees, the question is worth asking. And if DeVos is out, who is in? President Trump reportedly offered the job to Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, before approaching DeVos. Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale College, was allegedly in the running as well. But would leaders of this stature and reputation give up the success they enjoy at their present institutions to take a position they might hold for no more than a year? Not likely.
If I had one suggestion for the Department of Education going forward, it would be to strip the American Bar Association of its accreditation authority over law schools, leaving state supreme courts and state bar associations to determine whether graduates of any given law school may sit for the bar examination in their state. This move would require pressure from law schools, state legislators, and state supreme courts. It could unite conservatives and progressives in common cause. As I have stated elsewhere, “In this period of political rancor, reining in the ABA should appeal to both the Left and the Right, the former on grounds of racial diversity and fundamental fairness and the latter on grounds of decentralization and economic freedom.” There’s much more to say about this issue (see, e.g., here). My hope is that it becomes part of the national conversation.
Allen Mendenhall is the Associate Dean at Faulkner University Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and the Executive Director of the Blackstone & Burke Center for Law & Liberty.
