Transforming Education to Close the Creativity Gap

Jul 14, 2015Joe HallgartenRoisin Ellison

This week, the Roosevelt Institute's Next American Economy project is releasing a series of thought briefs in which experts examine how the economy will change over the next 25 years. Read the introduction here.

This week, the Roosevelt Institute's Next American Economy project is releasing a series of thought briefs in which experts examine how the economy will change over the next 25 years. Read the introduction here.

“Education should equip young people to shape an uncertain future so they can live more successful lives, on their own terms and together. They need the confidence and the capabilities to make their world together, in the face of tightening constraints on resources, rising aspirations, exploding opportunities for collaboration and pervasive institutional upheaval. They need an education that prepares them to be collaborative agents of change rather than atomised victims of change, to respond to frustration with creativity and innovation.”

—Leadbeater, C., Learning to Make a Difference: School as a Creative Community (2014)

The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturing, and Commerce (RSA) proposes that we live in an unprecedented time of rapid social, political, and technological change, with increased access to the tools and networks that generate potential for many more people to realize their ideas and aspirations. This is our “Power to Create” approach. And yet, much of this creative opportunity is untapped, leading to a “creativity gap” where inequalities of wealth and skills and differing levels of confidence mean not all can access the resources required.

The stakes are high when it comes to tapping into this potential, as we face immense and complex global challenges that require innovative and collaborative solutions. At the RSA, we believe that public, professional, and political attitudes toward creativity need to be rethought in order to prioritize the development of creative capacities in schools and educational institutions. This is both an end in itself and an economic and social imperative if young people are to thrive and flourish in the 21st century.

As such, when approached by the Roosevelt Institute to identify, through an educational lens, the trends and challenges that will affect our economy in the next 25 years, we saw an opportunity to collaborate with a like-minded organisation on exploring the issue of closing the creativity gap. In contributing to the Roosevelt’s Next American Economy project, we were given the space to reflect on more long-term considerations of redesign and reform—something from which the education sector itself could benefit.

Our thought brief examines how school systems could be designed to maximize students’ creative capacities such that learning is geared more clearly toward equipping students to meet the demand for creativity. It presents the trends, challenges, and potential solutions to the problems faced by our current education system in this regard, arguing that there is an increasingly strong economic rationale for schools to prioritize fostering creative capacities to ensure a future creative workforce. We conclude by outlining 12 design principles with related case studies, intended for use by school leaders, teachers, and systems to inform policy ideas within their particular context.

Having avoided prescriptive policy recommendations, we aim to stimulate conversation and debate around our 12 principles on creative learners, creative educators, and creative institutions from which a vision of school systems that would best equip young people for the 21st century can be realized.

Joe Hallgarten is the RSA's Director of Creative Learning and Development. Roisin Ellison is Programme Coordinator for RSA Academies.

Share This

Paths to Prosperity: What Workforce Development Will Look Like in 2040

Jul 14, 2015Chelsea Barabas

This week, the Roosevelt Institute's Next American Economy project is releasing a series of thought briefs in which experts examine how the economy will change over the next 25 years. Read the introduction here.

Fifty years ago, the path to professional success and economic stability was pretty clear:

This week, the Roosevelt Institute's Next American Economy project is releasing a series of thought briefs in which experts examine how the economy will change over the next 25 years. Read the introduction here.

Fifty years ago, the path to professional success and economic stability was pretty clear:

Get good grades -> Go to college -> Find a well-paying job -> Climb the corporate ladder -> Retire

Today, this path is much more ambiguous. Many icons of modern-day success—Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs—are college dropouts. In lieu of lifelong employment, young people are encouraged to develop “entrepreneurial skills” so that they can launch their own startups or, in other words, create their own jobs where there are none. But what will those jobs look like?

Recent technological breakthroughs in the fields of machine learning and robotics engineering have led to dramatic changes in the nature of work across many different sectors. Some researchers predict that over the next 20 years, 45 percent of jobs in the U.S. will be “computerized,” meaning that they will be broken down into automatable tasks that can be carried out by robots of one form or another.

Against this backdrop, it is no longer clear what skills, experiences, and knowledge are necessary in order to succeed in today’s rapidly evolving economy.

A few months ago, the Roosevelt Institute invited me to speculate on what the future of workforce development will look like in the coming decades, as technology continues to drive fundamental shifts in the nature of work in the U.S. economy. In my thought brief, I explore the following questions:

What skills and competencies should we focus on equipping the workforce with in order to meet the labor demands of the future economy?

Are university degrees dead? How will we demonstrate and package our competencies in order to find gainful employment in the future?

How will companies find skilled workers in the future? What institutions are needed in order to mediate fair relationships between potential employees and employers in the labor market?

In order to answer these questions, I outline a few specific trends currently underway in the arenas of workforce development, recruitment, and hiring. I examine the emergence of alternative higher education programs that seek to foster metacognitive competencies alongside the training of in-demand technical skills. In addition, I discuss the rise of online platforms like Khan Academy and Degreed, which could provide more customized educational experiences to a wide range of students. And finally, I touch on the opportunities and challenges that accompany the rise of recruitment methods that are driven by big data analysis.

These trends serve as an anchor for a much broader discussion on what the pathways to prosperity could look like in the rapidly changing U.S. economy. Although the future of workforce development remains highly ambiguous, my hope is that this thought brief can serve as a guide to thinking about the immense set of opportunities and risks that lie before us as we figure out how to prepare coming generations for the future of work.

Chelsea Barabas is the Senior Advisor for Social Impact at MIT Media Lab's Digital Currency Initiative.

Share This

Millennials Are Not Post-Racial: An Ivy League Education

Jun 24, 2015Riley Jones

“I don’t see race” is the oft-heard refrain of many Millennial men and women. Surveys have shown that people of this generation believe themselves to be more tolerant of racial differences than older Americans. These are young people who see the progress America has made in addressing racial disparities as irreversible.

“I don’t see race” is the oft-heard refrain of many Millennial men and women. Surveys have shown that people of this generation believe themselves to be more tolerant of racial differences than older Americans. These are young people who see the progress America has made in addressing racial disparities as irreversible. This sense of finality stems from a belief—proliferated in the 1980s and 1990s—that federal, state, and local governments have made a concerted effort , through measures including the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and affirmative action, to eliminate racial injustice in our society. To some, the election of a Black president in 2008 further symbolized a national transcendence of past prejudices. Because of these assumptions, many Millennials have failed to critically analyze the condition of African-Americans, who continue to face discrimination and inequality. This failure, in turn, has led to a dearth of substantive policy solutions to change the structural foundations of a system that has underserved too many for much too long.

As a low-income Black student at Columbia University from the South Side of Chicago, I am well assured that the breadth and depth of my experiences are not immediately relevant when compared to the experiences of my peers from more affluent places. Discussing Greece based off a literary interpretation is daunting when a majority of the class has seen the islands firsthand. However, I am certain that I belong here just as much as the next person. The influx in recent years of low-income students, most of whom happen to be racial minorities, in elite and selective college environments has provided for a mixture of class and race that has never been experienced on so massive a scale. From 2000 to 2011, the National Center for Education Statistics has measured a 12 and 14 percent increase in college enrollment for Black and Hispanic students, respectively. The wealth of difference between these groups has catalyzed the belief, in Millennial circles, that this is a post-racial generation.

There is a tendency, in the logic of post-racial America, to equate interpersonal racism (i.e. “I don’t like you because you’re Black”) with the racial barriers that structures and institutions have created (i.e. white students graduate from elite and selective colleges at significantly higher rates than Black students). Thus the students of the Millennial generation, and the schools that facilitate their interactions, are treading in uncharted waters when it comes to dealing with subtler racial disparities, and the results have been mediocre at best. The racism of our forefathers took the form of bricks and billy clubs, while today’s prejudices move more like an “invisible hand,” guiding young people—mostly Black and Latino—from urban ghettos to prisons and from impoverished schools to massive student loan debt.

Only by interrogating the structural foundations of American political and economic institutions does one begin to understand the fault in post-racial logic. For example, Columbia explicitly accepts qualified students on the basis of their economic indigence through certain programs. The retention rate, much less the graduation rate, does not even begin to rival that of wealthier students, who also tend to be whiter What is lost is that these students need different kinds of support than the university is used to giving. To say that race plays a role is to draw the ire of administrators who earnestly believe that the system is absolved of doubt because they are not personally racist. This is the work of structural racism: a demonstrated inequality cannot be labeled racial unless there is tangible proof of intent to discriminate based on race.

White Millennials, unlike their forebears, are not typically characterized by active interpersonal racial animosity; they are characterized by their silence in the face of the oppressive structural conditions that society engenders. It is not that people say that they accept me despite the color of my skin; it is that they openly express fear about walking in Harlem in the middle of the day even though the people they fear look like me. It is their acquiescence to and wholesale endorsement of a school that has made gentrification a commodity ready to be sold. The only way to truly root out this inequity is to call racism what it is.

Once the underpinnings of an actively unjust structure are called into question, progress can be made. Perhaps more accurately, policy can be made. The Civil Rights Movement used policy to effectively ban segregation in the United States. Ferguson and Baltimore have shown that the tradition of advocating for justice at the grassroots level has not waned; the challenge moving forward will be creating solutions that ensure unjustified police homicides will be prevented and not go unpunished. The outdated policy measures of the past will not suffice to rid the United States of its racial ills; we must show Millennials—the leaders of today and tomorrow—that racism still exists so they can press on ever more firmly toward its extinction.

Riley Jones is a Roosevelt Institute Campus Network member and a rising junior at Columbia University.

Share This

Texas's New Gun Law Won't Make Campuses Safer for Women

Jun 23, 2015Emma Copeland

Texas recently passed some of the most conservative, pro-gun legislation in the country, which drastically liberalizes open carry laws on college campuses.

Texas recently passed some of the most conservative, pro-gun legislation in the country, which drastically liberalizes open carry laws on college campuses. With the aid of lobbyists and lawmakers backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the legislation is now moving forward in more than fourteen other states as well.

Student policymakers are a vital intellectual constituency, and it is imperative to include them in discussions and decisions regarding student life. The Texas open carry law virtually eliminates any semblance of student control over this issue and their campus environment. Although changes may be made on a campus-by-campus basis, the law expressly states that schools "may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have [that] effect [on] license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution.” This is a limitation only on Texas's public colleges and universities, meaning students who can afford a private school can also afford personal safety and political choice. Those who enroll in public universities have those rights stripped from them from the start.

The absence of student input and the overwhelming presence of huge financing and pressure from the pro-gun lobby in the state’s original policy proposal is evident. These lobbying firms’ analyses include studies from pro-gun advocacy groups and anti-rape groups, yet students are left out completely.

I come from Virginia, a state with extremely loose open carry laws, and am therefore unfazed by a passing rifle or a handgun in the belt loop of my taxi driver. But as a student, I view my public college campus as a kind of sanctuary from the innate danger and threat that comes with a firearm in the street. New open carry laws on college campuses intended to decrease overall crime or “prevent sexual assault” simply increase the probability of deadly accidents with little hope of decreasing the likelihood of these heinous crimes. There is no evidence from city campuses in states with open carry laws that students are safer from sexual violence as a result of pro-gun legislation.

Constituents and legislators must ask themselves: is this truly responsible legislation? Studies have shown that upwards of 89 percent of sexual assaults occur under the influence of alcohol, and many others involve sedation drugs. Adding guns to an environment of drunkenness, recreational drug use, and violent assault is likely to have deadly consequences.

The Texas law and other bombastic proposals from groups like the NRA are taking advantage of sexual assault survivors and their traumatic stories and experiences. The NRA continues to engage in victim-blaming and guilt instead of responsible advocacy and after-care for survivors of these crimes. This kind of reckless lawmaking only leads to more long-term problems that necessitate further action in the future.

The idea that students need concealed weapons to prevent sexual assault on college campuses is a reminder that right-wing legislators are more concerned about financing their next campaign than creating meaningful and imperative policy for their collegiate constituents. Urging states to adopt these senseless open-carry laws connotes sexual assault as a natural occurrence in a woman’s college career—one that she must simply learn to fend off with a firearm. These pundits and politicians should spend more of their time producing progressive policy concerning the education, prevention, or after-care of students who will most likely encounter sexual assault in college, especially given that one in five collegiate women already have.

I have seen firsthand the ineffectiveness of my university’s efforts to educate and engage students and faculty on sexual assault as well as the failure of student health services in providing after-care to survivors. Inviting weapons onto campus shifts blame to survivors of sexual assault, perpetuating the idea that they are at fault for failing to protect themselves. The propensity for emotional damage to young college minds is astounding.

It is imperative to call for increased education instead of increased armament on campus. It has been proven time and time again that the right preventative measures achieve the desired result more effectively than defensive measures alone. The cycle of violence among students will never stop unless we truly change the policies surrounding our collegiate lives. In order to do that we must be part of the policymaking process.

Emma Copeland is a student at George Mason University, a 10 Ideas author, and a member of the Campus Network's Braintrust.

Share This

Protecting the One in Five: A Call to Action on Campus Sexual Assault

Jun 8, 2015Courtney Liss

Media coverage of Emma Sulkowicz’s performance art is drawing attention to a very serious and widespread issue: today, one out of every five women on a college campus has been sexually assaulted. President Obama himself spoke about it just last year.

Media coverage of Emma Sulkowicz’s performance art is drawing attention to a very serious and widespread issue: today, one out of every five women on a college campus has been sexually assaulted. President Obama himself spoke about it just last year. Worse, it is estimated that only 12 percent of sexual assaults are reported, meaning that far more college women have been forced to endure sexual assault while pursuing higher education than the official statistics suggest. Women do not and cannot have safe and equal access to education while facing this kind of threat—an injustice compounded by the fact that many schools discourage victims from coming forward, fail to disclose the scope of the problem on their campuses, and leave students to discuss their assaults with untrained employees.

By giving colleges and universities complete freedom in dealing with sexual assault cases, we allow them to make decisions in their own interests at the cost of the safety of their students. Often, this means discouraging victims from coming forward in order to lower the official count of sexual assaults on their campus (which have to be reported annually due to the Jeanne Clery Act). We need federal action to ensure that colleges and universities treat victims properly, report accurate statistics to the federal government and guarantee that on a local, campus level, women are able to pursue a quality education without fear of sexual assault.

After hearing from women on my campus, I realized that the issue of sexual assault goes beyond its frequency. Instead, a combination of factors—negative administrative responses to reporting, retaliation against victims from social groups, and the incessant questioning of victims (What were they wearing? Were they drunk?)—have coalesced into a far broader problem. In our current system, women are often left wondering whether it is worth the effort to go through their school’s disciplinary process at all. I knew I needed to do something about this—both on my campus and nationally. The one in five women on your campus need you, too.

How can you address sexual assault on your campus? The first priority has to be making survivors feel safe. On my campus at Tulane University, I painted the windows of our student center with survivor-friendly messaging: “You are not alone,” “We believe you,” and “This is not your fault.” Not only does this help demonstrate appropriate responses to sexual assault incidents, it also expresses support to survivors on campus. By painting the windows of your campus, you can display your #clearsupport for sexual assault victims.

But painting on windows alone will not create the lasting change we need to end campus sexual assault. We need federal and state-sponsored policy legislation. Along with other advocates on my campus, I tabled directly outside the painted windows to get student signatures on letters supporting the Bipartisan Campus Accountability and Safety Act, a U.S. Senate bill that would establish confidential advisors at universities, ensure training of on-campus security officials, force colleges to report sexual assaults by raising Title IX and Clery Act reporting fines, and have colleges utilize “one uniform process for campus disciplinary proceedings.” I encourage you to look up the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, or a piece of local or state legislation that addresses this issue, and work to gather support on your campus as well.

One in five is an unacceptably high number of women who have already been sexually assaulted. To protect college women from becoming a victim, we as college students need to speak up and out and demand that colleges make the changes we need now.

Courtney Liss is a member of the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network and a rising senior at Tulane University.

Share This

Nothing Will Replace Public Higher-Education

May 29, 2015Mike Konczal

I have a piece at Rolling Stone, about how Yale's giant donation and the collapse of for-profit colleges under fraud charges both tell the same story: as we defund and privatize state public colleges there no set of good institutions which will fill the void left behind.

Three quick follow-up points. First, a technical one responding to something several people have brought up. I argue: "how much will Yale increase its enrollment numbers as a result of this [Schwarzman $150 million donation]? We can make a good guess: zero. Yale's freshman enrollment this past year [is] virtually the same as in 2003."

Yale's enrollment has not only been flat since 2003 but since around the 1970s, even though the number of students being educated overall has doubled over those 40 years. Some people have noted that there are plans by fall 2017 to increase Yale's enrollment 15 percent. It's true, though those plans have been in the works since before the financial crisis and have been significantly delayed, and are unrelated to the Schwarzman donation. The point very much stands.

Some thought this point was a cheap shot, but I think it is crucial to get out there in the debate. Private non-profits pick and choose strategically how to expand enrollment to fufill their private goals, and that's great. But their goals do not line up with the public one of ensuring that all who qualify has access to quality, affordable higher education, and they certainly won't step up as that system is pulled back.

Second, the for-profit stories are crazy. I need to be writing more about them, but keep an eye on their implosion, and what it means for privatization and running all government services through for-profit actors. The Corinthian debt-strikers are worth watching as well - here's Annie Lowrey writing about them and Astra Taylor.

Third, two recommendations. Michelle Goldberg's long Nation piece on the inequality amplifying consequences of public disinvestment at the University of Arizona, which I link to, is fantastic, and very much worth your time. I also tried to get in this great column by Andrew Hartman on how conservatives used to value mass higher education as a basis of Western Civilization during the Culture Wars - Alan Bloom describing it as "a space between the intellectual wasteland he has left behind and the inevitable dreary professional training that awaits him after the baccalaureate" - but now have traded that battle for one of defunding and privatization, but it didn't make it. But check out my piece anyway!

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

I have a piece at Rolling Stone, about how Yale's giant donation and the collapse of for-profit colleges under fraud charges both tell the same story: as we defund and privatize state public colleges there no set of good institutions which will fill the void left behind.

Three quick follow-up points. First, a technical one responding to something several people have brought up. I argue: "how much will Yale increase its enrollment numbers as a result of this [Schwarzman $150 million donation]? We can make a good guess: zero. Yale's freshman enrollment this past year [is] virtually the same as in 2003."

Yale's enrollment has not only been flat since 2003 but since around the 1970s, even though the number of students being educated overall has doubled over those 40 years. Some people have noted that there are plans by fall 2017 to increase Yale's enrollment 15 percent. It's true, though those plans have been in the works since before the financial crisis and have been significantly delayed, and are unrelated to the Schwarzman donation. The point very much stands.

Some thought this point was a cheap shot, but I think it is crucial to get out there in the debate. Private non-profits pick and choose strategically how to expand enrollment to fufill their private goals, and that's great. But their goals do not line up with the public one of ensuring that all who qualify has access to quality, affordable higher education, and they certainly won't step up as that system is pulled back.

Second, the for-profit stories are crazy. I need to be writing more about them, but keep an eye on their implosion, and what it means for privatization and running all government services through for-profit actors. The Corinthian debt-strikers are worth watching as well - here's Annie Lowrey writing about them and Astra Taylor.

Third, two recommendations. Michelle Goldberg's long Nation piece on the inequality amplifying consequences of public disinvestment at the University of Arizona, which I link to, is fantastic, and very much worth your time. I also tried to get in this great column by Andrew Hartman on how conservatives used to value mass higher education as a basis of Western Civilization during the Culture Wars - Alan Bloom describing it as "a space between the intellectual wasteland he has left behind and the inevitable dreary professional training that awaits him after the baccalaureate" - but now have traded that battle for one of defunding and privatization, but it didn't make it. But check out my piece anyway!

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

After Divestment, What Comes Next for College Campuses?

May 20, 2015Torre Lavelle

From championing civil rights through Freedom Summer to fighting sexual assault, college students have long made a name for themselves as leaders of ideas, activism, and innovation.

From championing civil rights through Freedom Summer to fighting sexual assault, college students have long made a name for themselves as leaders of ideas, activism, and innovation. It should therefore come as no surprise that the fossil-fuel divestment movement—the campaign to get institutions to pull their financial investments from fossil fuels and redirect that money to clean, renewable energy as a way of tackling climate change—has its roots in U.S. college campuses. With a total of $50 billion from 837 institutions and individuals divested so far, the campaign has succeeded at an unprecedented rate, growing faster than the divestment movements against both South African apartheid and tobacco.

Last fall’s stunning news that the heirs to the Rockefeller fortune were pulling their philanthropic funds out of fossil fuel officially confirmed divestment’s transition from campus movement to the financial mainstream. Combined with the commitment of more than 25 universities to move beyond coal, with more to follow in the upcoming year, student leaders and activists should carefully consider their role in deciding where climate change policy goes from here. After successfully pressuring the administration of my own school, the University of Georgia, to shut down its coal-fired boiler, the campus Beyond Coal group effectively called it quits and disbanded. But as pipelines for progressive environmental solutions, campus groups should just be getting started.

The Hoover Institution published The State Clean Energy Cookbook in 2014, which includes a dozen “recipes” for cost-effective and easily supportable policies that have already been implemented in both blue and red states with strong overall results. Now we need a new wave of student activism focused on building media strategy, coalitions, and administrative and legislative relationships to take this natural next step and enter a larger policy arena.

On the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urging governors and state officials to “think twice” before submitting plans for state compliance with the EPA Clean Power Plan, college students should examine the role of states and regional networks in advancing clean energy policy. The work of UGA’s Beyond Coal group and others must extend beyond individual campuses, and should strongly oppose any calls to ignore federal deadlines for state carbon plans.

Regional cap and trade systems are another critical area for post-divestment work. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) among nine Northeast and mid-Atlantic states became the first market-based approach to reducing pollution by selling carbon credits and reinvesting the revenue into clean energy technology and consumer benefits. With a goal of reducing 10 percent of power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions across the northeastern U.S. by 2020, the RGGI instead caused emissions to drop more than 40 percent from 2005 to 2012 and generated $102.5 million in revenue. An estimated $1.4 billion in lifetime energy bill savings are coupled with bill credits to low-income families and clean energy job training for workers. RGGI also served as the baseline policy model for California’s cap and trade system, the first state with a program of this kind.

State adoption of these programs has so far been lacking in leadership and provides an excellent road map for student involvement. I’m not calling on students alone to make this happen, though; I’m also calling on the Sierra Club, 350.org, and other environmental organizations with strong student involvement to step up to the next challenge. Let’s celebrate our victories while capturing the momentum focused on divestment and recognize that it’s time we expanded our reach.

Torre Lavelle is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment. She is majoring in ecology and environmental economics at the University of Georgia.

Share This

Better Community Investment Will Pay Dividends for Colleges

May 19, 2015Emma Copeland

We need to start holding colleges accountable as anchor institutions that provide economic growth and stability to their communities.

We need to start holding colleges accountable as anchor institutions that provide economic growth and stability to their communities.

In recent weeks, the debate about holding colleges accountable has focused on schools’ responsibilities toward failing students, continuously rising tuition, and increasing student debt. What’s been overlooked is the role of colleges as a potential force for good within their more immediate communities. Indeed, one of the most profound ways a university can improve the holistic experience of its students is to invest more in the surrounding community.

Presently, many four-year institutions entrust the bulk of their money to low-risk funds or national banks like Bank of America. The money that flows into a school never directly returns to the community, and it is often the case that low-income residents near a college must battle gentrification, stagnation, or both. For example, New York University’s $3.5 billion endowment is currently invested in national banks such as Bank of America, Chase, and Citibank, none of which are directly involved in developing the community around NYU.

Outside of investment, universities and colleges spend a huge amount of money that has the potential to directly affect the communities around them. Big schools like Michigan State University, which purchases nearly $87 million worth of goods and services annually, could spend mere fractions of this number on local small businesses, causing them to flourish like never before.

As a student at a four-year public university in Northern Virginia, I know a few things about debt and personal economic stagnation. To say “the United States can’t afford the status quo in higher education” might be the understatement of the decade. So how can we shake up the status quo?

We need to start holding colleges accountable not just to the government but to their communities. As anchor institutions, they have the power to provide economic growth and stability and serve as cornerstones of their communities due to their role as large permanent employers with significant investment capabilities. They are also permanent physical landmarks that serve as points of pride for their members as well as nearby residents.

Colleges and universities tend to be huge anchor institutions due to their extensive reach in a variety of commercial activities, immense diversity of employment throughout their numerous departments, and the vital exchange of wealth between students, alumni, trustees, fans, and neighbors to the school. It is time for these institutions to begin making a concerted effort to develop and invest locally for the long term.

The first way we can hold colleges accountable as anchor institutions is by encouraging and facilitating responsible purchasing from locally owned and operated businesses for anything from food to office supplies. This would allow small businesses to leap into the big leagues, and colleges have a responsibility to support the entrepreneurial efforts of graduates who choose to settle nearby as well as the local business owners who employ their students and alumni. Even 10 percent of the funds earmarked for paper products for a large public institution such as the University of Michigan would be the number one account for a local business struggling to compete with national suppliers. Working with these businesses to help increase their production capacity and streamline various processes would ultimately result in a symbiotic exchange of tailored quality for vital business development. Colleges have too long relied on one-size-fits-all corporations to supply their food, office supplies, cleaning services, and more. In the long-run, establishing relationships with local providers enables both the institution and the businesses to thrive as each respects and relies on the other.

Second, universities should be responsible for investing locally. Universities often have access to far more capital than the cities and towns that surround them, but they invest in distant fossil fuel companies, huge national banks, or even Israeli military efforts.  As anchor institutions, colleges should invest in their communities through community development financial institutions (CDFIs). By promising to invest a majority of its cash-on-hand in the surrounding community, a CDFI is able to safely give loans to small businesses, prospective college students and families, and new homeowners. These kinds of investments improve the lives and livelihoods of community members not directly affiliated with the anchor institutions. This is particularly vital because non-anchor institutions like large-scale banks are often unwilling to invest in these low-income communities because of the economic risk.

Colleges are institutions that can help a struggling or non-competitive community find its feet. If we hold them accountable in the right way, as institutions of economic growth for the long-term, colleges can begin to boast many more achievements and far fewer failures.

Emma Copeland is a junior at George Mason University, a 10 Ideas author, and a member of the Campus Network's Braintrust.

Share This

Beyond Divestment: How NYU Can Still Invest in the Public Good

May 12, 2015Eugenia Kim

The fossil fuel divestment movement on college campuses highlights two distinct aspects of the problem of climate change. The first and most obvious is that climate change and environmental issues are drastically changing our planet and require immediate action. The second is the responsibility of our colleges and universities to be stewards of responsible social change.

The fossil fuel divestment movement on college campuses highlights two distinct aspects of the problem of climate change. The first and most obvious is that climate change and environmental issues are drastically changing our planet and require immediate action. The second is the responsibility of our colleges and universities to be stewards of responsible social change. While climate change appears to have caught the public eye in recent weeks, this question of responsibility continues to be overlooked. Both of these issues are now coming to a head at New York University (NYU).

On March 26, a working group of NYU’s University Senate voted to recommend not divesting from fossil fuels. On April 30, the larger University Senate, which encompasses both student representatives and faculty, will also vote on divestment.

The stated argument against divestment is twofold: political and fiduciary. The report released by NYU’s working group is emblematic of the faulty assumptions school administrations across the country have about divestment. The report claims that it is not in the nature of a university to take a stand on a political issue such as climate change, and that NYU would be better suited to combat climate change through increased research investments. Further, the report states that it would be financially irresponsible for the university to divest.

However, the working group’s argument is self-contradictory. The university cannot simultaneously claim to have no position on climate change and actively fund research that works to combat it. Further, the sheer existence of climate change is no longer a debate; broad consensus has been reached among independent agencies and scientists that climate change is real. The political question that does arise is what the institution is going to do about it. The working group also fails to recognize that divesting from fossil fuels and investing in research are not mutually exclusive. The administration has the power to do both while maintaining its fiduciary responsibilities.

NYU’s arguments against divestment are in no way unique; they exemplify the fundamental assumption of college administrations that an institution must choose between the social good and economic profitability. This is not the case, but the divestment movement has failed to demonstrate that university investments can be both profitable and environmentally friendly. Advocates committed to the divestment movement must provide more guidance as to how administrators can better spend their money.

While divestment is an important symbolic gesture toward a university’s commitment to sustainability, meaningful investments in green energy businesses are a more tangible request, if perhaps less likely to inspire rallies. Investment alternatives offer practical solutions that enable activists to work with, rather than against, administrations. For example, Ohio’s Case Western Reserve University has not divested from fossil fuels, but it has invested in the Evergreen Cooperatives, thereby promoting economic growth in the Cleveland community, and still maintains a commitment to tackling larger questions around sustainability and climate change.

While these investment campaigns are harder to organize around, there are students who are interested in analyzing the economic responsibility of their universities, and student involvement in this process is vital. The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network’s Rethinking Communities initiative is geared toward identifying and developing smarter economic decision-making practices for colleges and universities. The project is led by students who support divestment but offer smart and socially responsible local investment solutions.

NYU, for example, could stand to gain higher returns on its investments if it would simply move some of its funds from large banks like Chase into community development banks. By divesting just $500,000 (0.014 percent of NYU’s $3.5 billion endowment) from fossil fuels and moving it to community development banks, NYU could increase its returns while helping middle- and low-income residents get loans, promoting financial literacy, and providing secure financial services. This idea that investments can be both socially responsible and profitable holds true for universities across the nation.  

Students are important but overlooked stakeholders in university policy. They are the ones doing the research and asking the important questions about their schools’ social responsibility. Sit-ins, protests, and rallies across the country are the product of a large number of young people feeling left out of the decision-making process at institutions designed to serve them. These students want to participate and engage with their school administrations in making financial decisions and developing viable solutions, In short, these students want to be part of universities that embody the values they teach.

Eugenia Kim is student at New York University and a member of the Rethinking Communities Brain Trust.

Share This

Bo Cutter: Universal Pre-K Is the First Step Toward the Next American Economy

Apr 29, 2015Laurie Ignacio

Our series on “The Good Economy of 2040” continues this week with Next American Economy Director and Roosevelt Senior Fellow Bo Cutter.

Our series on “The Good Economy of 2040” continues this week with Next American Economy Director and Roosevelt Senior Fellow Bo Cutter.

If Cutter could pick one policy solution to ensure a good economy in the future, he’d call for universal pre-K through secondary school to "bring up children from low-income households" and teach all children "the element of imagination, creativity, and innovation to make their way in the world that's coming."

Read more about the case for universal pre-K here:

"Pre-K for All" (US News & World Report)

"Arne Duncan: High-quality preschool is a sure path to the middle class" (WashPost)

Bowman Cutter is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and Director of the Next American Economy Project. He was a managing director of Warburg Pincus, a major global private equity firm headquartered in New York City, between 1996 and 2009, where he served both as the firm’s economist and as a leader in its international business, with particular reference to Asia. He has served with distinction during two Democratic presidencies: as director of the National Economic Council and Deputy Assistant to the President during the Clinton presidency; and as Executive Director for Budget during the Carter presidency. He also served as leader of the OMB transition team after the election of President Obama.

Share This

Pages