For-Profit Lobbyist Misfires on Support from Rev. Al Sharpton
One thing the for-profit lobby has been working really hard to leverage is the idea that new gainful employment regulations proposed by the Department of Education, which would stop federal funding to programs that leave students in too much debt, would hurt minority students. Already Harry C. Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, wrote an op-ed for The Root back in September arguing that the new regulations would be disastrous for minority students:
… because minority students as a group tend to need more student aid to meet their college expenses, they are far more likely to fall short of the "gainful employment" guidelines. This rule is aimed at career-oriented schools, but if the same test were run on students at traditionally not-for-profit black colleges and universities, 93 percent would fail the "gainful employment" test because of unacceptable repayment rates.
As Julianne Hing pointed out on Colorlines when she debunked his argument, "Alford, it should be noted, also opposes the Employee Free Choice Act, climate change legislation and net neutrality. Unsurprisingly, his outfit has been bankrolled by both oil and telecom corporations. Alford—and the political leaders who’ve sent angry letters to [Education Secretary Arne] Duncan opposing for-profit school regulation—may represent a black and Latino constituency, but unfortunately not their interests."
But the idea that new regulations might hurt black and Latino students is powerful rhetoric and it looks like the for-profit lobby isn't going to abandon it easily. For-profit lobbyist Lanny Davis, someone Campus Progress has written about before because he's known for representing disreputable causes despite labeling himself a liberal, made roughly the same argument as Alford in an op-ed for The Huffington Post in October.
Rather than expanding college opportunities and fighting fraud, the proposed new "gainful employment" ("GE") rules would instead limit college access especially for minority students, raise taxpayer costs, and create new obstacles for employers eager to hire qualified workers.
Davis also indicated that high-profile figures known for their involvement with the civil rights movement agreed with him.
No wonder so many members of the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus have written letters of concern to DOE Secretary Arne Duncan, as well as many other leaders of minority communities who have expressed the same concerns, such as Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Rev. Al Sharpton, regarding these regulations as currently drafted and support serious changes before final issuance.
But Inside Higher Ed recently obtained an email exchange between Davis and Sharpton, in which Sharpton said he didn't oppose the new regulations.
"We want to run this ad in next Monday’s Washington Post – the day of a meeting with Secretary Duncan and a dozen or more members of Congress, organized by Rep. [Alcee] Hastings," Davis wrote.
"I CANNOT approve this quote or my name/likeness in this ad," Sharpton replied via his Blackberry. "Though I agree that there is a need for the services the schools provide, especially in communities of color, we should weed out the abusers of this service.
"To attack the Department rather than engage them is a bad strategy in my opinion. I think the President and Sec Duncan are not the enemies here. In fact I think they have done more for closing the education achievement gap than they have been given credit. I would like to seek a common ground to protect the services minority students need but not defend those who have manipulated those needs for ONLY personal gain," Sharpton added. "Let's talk."
It seems that Davis and other for-profit lobbyists who were hoping to get the support of high-profile civil rights leaders (not that all people view Sharpton as the voice of the civil rights movement anyway) don't have as much support from the civil rights community as they originally thought.
Using the argument that minority students have high unemployment so therefore programs that leave these students with high debt shouldn't be regulated seems nonsensical. If anything, there should be an even greater need to regulate programs that ensnare students in high debt and protect them from choosing programs that will ultimately be disastrous for them financially.
Kay Steiger is the editor of CampusProgress.org.
Students Win Right to Wear ‘Jesus is Not a Homophobe’ shirts; Survey Says College Is Too Easy
Sneak Peek: #CPNC12 Speakers Revealed
The Top 10 Facts About Children of Color in the United States