Salient Points on Education Cuts

CURRENTLY, IN ONE OF these oft-overlooked display cases on the fifth floor of Lamont, hangs on exhibit celebrating the fifth anniversary of The Salient, Harvard's conservative student publication. Arranged under a sign asking "Who says Conservatism isn't Progressive?" is a series of past Salient issues, ranging from the early, newspaper-like layout to the present handsome tabloid format, exuding an aura of mature respectability. But if editorials like Raymond C. Bonker's "Reagan Education Cuts", which unsurprisingly supports the President's pulling of the plug on student aid, and, surprisingly, takes seriously Education Secretary William J. Bennett's insensitive remarks about stereos and vacations, are any indication of what lurks behind the enticing new covers, then theonly claim The Salient can make to membership in the mainstream is in the realm of graphics.

First, let's review a few facts about the proposed Reagan cuts (hopefully put to permanent rest by a courageous Senate Budget Committee repudiation last week) would inflict on most of the nation's students and their families. The Adminstration proposes to do away with any federal and to students from families with an annual income of over $32,500. Using conservative, if not outdated, estimates that the average middle class household spends 24 percent of income on housing and 20 percent on food the family making such an income is left with $18,000 to pay its taxes and take care of necessites like clothing, medical care and transporation, each in itself a considerable expenditure.

Clearly, then, this leaves a slim margin from which to finance a college education, not to mention the pinch and additional college-aged children put on the family budget. But wait, you say, nobody pays lot a college education entirely out of annual income. Why, most of our folks have been saving ever since we could read Dr. Seuss All true, but with higher education costs rising at about 7 percent a year, the fact remains that without some form of federal assistance, the great majority of Americans will be unable to send their children to private colleges and universities under the proposed plan.

So what do the enlightened editors at The Salient have to say about this Claiming that "a college education (especially one subsidized by American taxpayers) is not a guaranteed right but rather a privilege" Bonker states that the federal government has no obligation to fill the gap between what these families can afford and what tuition costs. Seducing as this distinction between right and privilege may be, however, it is, ultimately, a false one.

ABSENT FROM BOSKER argument is any conception of the university as a socially strategic in stitution, or of education as a collective good. Contrary to the belief of many currently in power in Washington, taxpayers aren't underwriting some four-year frolic, but investing in the country's future. Hackneved as the human capital argument is, an educated citizenry is the key to economic growth and national prosperity, goals which conservatives supposedly value dearly. It's not that individuals needs taxpayers money for their own private benefits It's that the country needs educated individuals for the public good.

Well, o.k., many conservatives, reply we acknowledge the value of education but let those who can't aford private universities go to state schools. This has to be the most curious part of the fiscal watchdogs' argument; if one takes their rhetoric seriously, one would think that schools like Harvard area conservative's dream. Private education relieves government of some of the responsibility of educating the citizenry. It's voluntarism at its best. Sure, under the present system, Uncle Sam picks up part of the tuition tab, but the bulk of he funding comes from private sources Guaranteed student loans are made and administered by banks and other market systems, and cost the taxpayers only a fraction of the total size of the program if it's the taxpayer's only a fraction of the total size of the program. If it's the taxpayer's wallet you want to protect, directing students to state schools which aremore subsidized won't do the trick; in fact it will increase government expenditures and taxes.

Any budgetary relief that may result from denying tens of thousands of Americans access to the best-institutions of higher education will be a far out-weighed by the mockery the cuts would make of some of the nation's crowning principles. Hopefully the defeat of the proposal by the Senate committee last week will stand up when the full Senate considers the matter. If the proposal is reinstated, hard work will not be rewarded commensurately and the notion of equality of opportunity will be dealt a serious blow. When Bonker concludes that "the financial and party is over" one has to wonder why it is that the last one invited is always the first to slam the door.