Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] THE PRICE OF INDEPENDENCE [[[[[[[[[[[[
By George Roche (1/13/1989)
[Dr Roche has been President of Hillsdale College (Hillsdale,
Michigan 49242) since 1971. He is also a Marine veteran.]
[From IMPRIMIS, January 1989]
[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]
In March of 1988, the United States Congress overrode a
presidential veto of a piece of legislation by a vote of 365 to
257, thus precipitating the greatest single extension of federal
power in this century. No doubt, most Americans are unaware that
such an event took place. Few have ever heard of the Civil
Rights Restoration Act, but sooner or later they will, because it
will dramatically affect their lives in the years to come.
What the passage of this act betrays is how far we have
strayed from our understanding of constitutional government and
our historical commitment to individual liberty. What does it
do? It guarantees that where government money goes, government
surely follows. And as story-tellers were once wont to say,
thereby hangs a tale.
At Hillsdale College, a small school in rural Michigan, the
tale begins in 1844, when a group of local church congregations
founded a liberal arts college, independent of any church
sanction, setting up its operations in a rented storefront. The
first handful of students included a woman who was the first in
Michigan to be admitted to college on par with men in a degree
program, and the future founder of a major black university.
But from the outset, the founders of the College shared a
grand vision. They declared that Hillsdale College was an
independent, nonsectarian institution of higher learning founded
by men and women ``grateful to God for the inestimable
blessings'' resulting from civil and religious liberty and
``believing that the diffusion of learning is essential to the
perpetuity of these blessings.'' It further stated that the
College's objective was ``to furnish all persons who wish,
irrespective of nation, color, sex, a literary and scientific
education'' outstanding among American colleges and to combine
with this ``such moral and social instruction as will best
develop the minds and improve the hearts of its pupils.''
Today, the mission statement also adds: ``the College
considers itself a trustee of modern man's intellectual and
spiritual inheritance from the Judaeo-Christian tradition and
Greco-Roman culture, a heritage finding its clearest expression
in the American experiment of self-government under law.
``By training the young in the liberal arts, Hillsdale College
prepares students to become leaders worthy of that legacy. By
encouraging the scholarship of its faculty, it contributes to the
preservation of that legacy for future generations. By publicly
defending that legacy, it enlists the aid of other friends of
free civilization and thus secures the conditions of its own
survival and independence.''
Nearly 150 years after the founding of Hillsdale College, its
mission is still clear, the resolve still firm. Hillsdale
College offers its 1100-1200 students a traditional liberal arts
education, including Greek, Latin and Christian studies. It
maintains single-sex dormitories, an honor code, and a
campus-wide social policy regarding good conduct. And it doesn't
keep records of its students' and staff members' race, religion
or ethnic background, or use such criteria to determine how they
ought to be treated. Above all, it is distinguished from most
other schools by the fact that in its century-and-a-half of
existence accepted federal funds. Today, three out of every four
dollars in need-based tuition aid to public and private education
comes from the federal government -- but not at Hillsdale.
In the summer of 1975, all colleges and universities received
a bulletin from the (then) Department of Health, Education and
Welfare declaring that under pending affirmative action
legislation (which subsequently became law) they would be
required to sign a statement attesting that they were in
compliance with a variety of government regulations regarding
discrimination. Signing meant that these same schools would
thereafter be compelled to report detailed information about the
race, gender and ethnic origin of all students and employees.
Hiring and admission practices as well as a multitude of other
procedures were to be hereafter scrutinized. Watchdog
affirmative action programs were to be installed, at each
school's expense, on many campuses to ensure that government
racial and sexual quotas were being enforced.
Significantly, under Title IX legislation, the definition of a
``recipient institution'' was revised. Under the old definition,
a school which received direct federal subsidies was subject to
federal control. Now, under the new definition, a school which
merely accepted students who had federal grants or loans was to
be classified as a recipient institution, forcing it to accept
the same control as directly subsidized schools. This is much
like telling a mom-and-pop grocery store that accepting
customers' food stamps makes the store a ward of the federal
government.
A handful of schools didn't return their compliance forms,
hoping they would be lost in the leviathan's computer. But, in
the fall of 1975, the trustees of Hillsdale College decided that
Title IX was such a serious assault on the school's freedom that
we simply could not accept it. We sent a letter to HEW telling
its officers so. We were the only school in the United States,
large or small, that notified the federal government that we had
no intention of signing away our rights, and that we were
prepared to make a legal issue of the matter.
For five years, Hilsdale stood alone, insisting that the
federal government had overstepped its authority. Our
stubbornness attracted wide notice; Hillsdale became a powerful
symbol to a very substantial national audience. People often
referred to Hillsdale as David struggling against Goliath.
Readership for the College's monthly publication, IMPRIMIS, grew
from 1,000 in 1971 to 50,000, and then 100,000 names. (It is now
fast approaching the 200,000 mark.) People from all walks of
life let us know that they were glad someone was refusing to bend
to federal pressure and was willing to take a firm stand in
opposition to government intrusion.
Just as Hillsdale has symbolized independence to people
nationwide, the school has meant something quite different to the
federal government: A very large pain in the neck. In other
words, an institution unwilling to compromise its principles,
untempted by the lure of federal dollars, preferring freedom of
choice and self-reliance to dependence on government. But
eventually they had to face us in the courtroom.
Between 1975 and 1980, we developed our legal case. We hired
attorneys and spent about half a million dollars on legal
expenses. We endured a series of hearings, and then a series of
trials. And then, suddenly, one of the schools who had been
``hiding in the computer'' popped up. Pennsylvania's Grove City
College was challenged by HEW. The school's directors came to us
for help, and we put our own resources at their disposal,
including the details of the constitutional case which we had
painstakingly built in the previous five years.
So the two cases -- Grove City's and Hillsdale's -- made it to
the Circuit Court of Appeals, theirs in the Second Circuit and
ours in the Sixth. One step short of the Supreme Court,
Hillsdale won its case by a 2-1 split decision. Grove City fared
less well. The school lost on the appeals level and its case was
taken to the Supreme Court. The brief presented in the case
which became known around the world as Grove City v. Bell,
although not attributed as such, was Hillsdale's.
In February of 1984, the justices rendered a decision. Their
first conclusion was that if an individual college or university
department was found engaging in discriminatory practices, only
that department, not the whole institution, could be penalized.
This ``program-specific'' portion of the decision was hailed as a
victory. However, the justices went on to uphold HEW's
definition of a recipient institution. A single Pell grant or
National Direct Student Loan spent on our campus, for example,
makes Hillsdale College a recipient institution exposed to
unlimited federal interference. Today, even the G.I. Bill isn't
exempt; veterans have no right to attend a school of their own
choosing without jeopardizing that same school's independence.
Once again, Hillsdale responded. We notified the federal
government that the College would no longer accept students with
federal grants and loans. Instead, we would offer candidates who
qualified for admission private sources of financial aid. The
issue was not just shielding ourselves, but protecting our
students. In the first year, this resolve cost about $250,000;
today the figure is nearly $600,000, which we must raise in
addition to all our other scholarship and aid obligations.
Why has the expense skyrocketed? You often hear college and
university presidents complaining that the Reagan administration
has gutted higher education, but that is pure nonsense. Federal
aid to education has increased 70 percent in the last several
years. And a school like Hillsdale which refuses to sup at the
federal trough is forced to compete in a market in which the odds
are against us.
I'll repeat an earlier statistic: three out of every four
dollars in need-based tuition aid to education comes from the
federal government. If that doesn't take your breath away, it
ought to. Thirty years ago, when federal aid to education was
being debated for the first time, the big argument was over
whether federal funding would result in federal control. ``Of
course not!'' was the assurance we received from many of our
political leaders. ``Why in the world would the federal
government want to meddle with academic freedom? All we want to
do is lend a hand to education ....''
Disingenuous or not, the assurances proved false. During
Hillsdale's ten years in the courts, the bureaucracy proved time
and time again that what it was interested in was power, plain
and simple. Never once was the allegation raised that Hillsdale
discriminated -- we were in the anti-discrimination business over
a century before the government ever found out there was a
problem -- yet we were hauled into court, just the same. Looking
at the hundreds of federally-imposed restrictions on school
hiring, tenure and admissions policies can anyone doubt that the
real issue is government control?
The 1984 Supreme Court decision was far from the end of the
story. The liberal faction in Congress was determined to apply
it to every business and organization in the United States.
Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy teamed up with liberal Republican
Senator Lowell Weicker to concoct the Civil Rights Restoration
Act. They offered it in session after session of Congress. Lots
of people, including me, testified against it. The third time
around, however, they triumphed resoundingly over a presidential
veto. As I have said, the Civil Rights Restoration Act
represents the greatest single extension of federal authority in
our lifetime, perhaps in our history. It stipulates that federal
aid in any form, touching an organization in any way, makes it --
lock, stock and barrel -- subject to federal control. Churches,
hospitals, family businesses -- none are exempt from its sweeping
provisions.
How could such a law sail through Congress? Well, it had a
great title, for starters. The words ``civil rights'' bestow
magical protection these days. Few politicians have the courage
to go on record as voting against any bill related to civil
rights, even if it may actually encourage unequal treatment
before the law or other abuses of individual rights. This lack
of courage is aggravated by the fact that business as usual in
the House and Senate means routinely passing 1,000 page,
pork-laden bills which no member fully supports, much less reads
in their entirety. They couldn't if they wanted to; this is
legislation by the pound and the weight of it is crushing the
American people.
With the Civil Rights Restoration Act, we have been sold a
bill of goods wrapped in a tissue of deception. Where once the
blind-folded goddess of justice was supposed to view all who came
before her with impartiality, this new law compels her to peek:
``Tell me your race, your creed, your sex, and then I will tell
you how I will treat you.[''] That isn't justice; it is racism,
it is sexism. It will also force the kind of ``equality of
result'' rather than ``equality of opportunity'' tests that have
done so much to harm American higher education upon society.
The financial and administrative cost of doing business and
delivering services will rise tremendously. In the end, the
burden, the penalties and the inconvenience will rest most
heavily on the individual citizens who depend on low-cost and
rapid service for their needs. More often than not, they are
members of racial minorities, the handicapped, the elderly, the
poor -- the very persons the Civil Rights Restoration Act
purports to protect.
And for what? To ensure that no one is discriminated against,
that no one is treated unfairly. The goal is a noble one, but
there are already ample statutes, enforcement powers and court
rulings to see the goal progressively better realized. There
comes a point at which granting ever broader enforcement powers
to government and imposing even more stringent reporting and
compliance requirements on our public and private institutions
becomes counterproductive.
That point has been reached now as the Civil Rights
Restoration Act tries to, in the words of one observer, ``kick
down a door that is already open.'' It harms those who are
passing through the open door of equal opportunity in our society
and those already working in good faith to hold the door open.
The prospect of this kind of federal intervention is
frightening, but not without precedent. We have been allowing
the government more and more control over our public and private
lives for years. Nowhere is this clearer than in education.
What originated as local schooling supported by immediate
communities (and was therefore somewhat responsive to local and
parental wishes) has inexorably moved toward bureaucratic binges
and isolation.
Hillsale College will survive. We will continue to pay the
price of protecting our independence. Moreover, we have proved
that you don't need government money in order to become an
American success story. The next battle may come over tax
exemption; after all, the IRS has already declared that it
regards tax exemption as a subsidy rather than as a recognition
of independent status. That we will be challenged again is
certain, for our very existence is a rebuke and a threat to the
bureaucrats who desire complete control. But Hillsdale's future
is not the only thing at stake: the real issue is whether society
can survive without the freedom which this little school so
ardently champions.
``Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of
Hillsdale College, featuring presentations at Hillsdale's Center
for Constructive Alternatives and at its Shavano Institute for
National Leadership.''
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page