Obama Signs a Bill to Reduce Interest Rates on Student Loans: This is Just a Side Show

Earlier this month, Congress passed a bipartisan bill to reduce interest rates on student loans, and President Obama signed the bill into law this week.  Under the new law, the interest rate on this year's undergraduate loans is set at 3.9 percent. For graduate loans, the rate is 5.4 percent. For loans taken out by parents, the new rate is locked in for this year at 6.4 percent.

Interest rates will rise if the interest rate on 10-year treasury notes goes up, which it is expected to do, but the maximum interest rate under the new law is capped at 8.25 percent for undergraduate loans. The cap for graduate student loans is set at 9.5 percent and parents' loans are capped at 10.5 percent.

The new law is good news, I suppose, and nullifies the 6.8 percent interest rate that undergraduates were paying before it was enacted. But make no mistake--the recent Congressional squabble about interest rates on student loans is just a side show. 

Why? Because almost everyone participating in the congressional debate on student-loan interest rates assumed that the borrowers will pay back the money. As I noted in a previous blog, the New York Times and Senator Elizabeth Warren talked as if the government would make an unseemly profit if the interest rate on student loans wasn't lowered.

 

Out of Control

All this is nonsense.  The student loan default rate is so high that the government is going to lose money no matter what interest rate it charges on student loans.  How high is the default rate? No one knows for sure because the Department of Education hasn't released the data.  But DOE itself estimates that 46 percent of students who borrow money to attend for-profit institutions will default on their loans at some point during the repayment period.

And, as everyone knows, DOE has been underestimating student-loan default rates.  So if DOE says 46 percent of students who borrow to attend for-profit colleges are going to default, it is a safe bet that the real default rate for this group is well over 50 percent. 

Furthermore, a lot of former students have gotten economic hardship deferments that temporarily excuse them from making loan payments; and these people aren't counted as defaulters. Nevertheless, a lot of these folks will never pay off their loans. 

As Senator Harkin's Senate Committee report pointed out, people whose loans are in deferments are excused from making loan payments, but the interest on the loans continues to accrue for most borrowers, causing students' overall debt to grow larger with each passing month.  Thus, economic hardship deferments are making it harder for debtors who obtain them to ultimately pay off their loans.

How many people have loans in deferment status? DOE hasn't released the number, but it could be millions.  As the Harkin Report explained, for-profit colleges are aggressively encouraging their former students to apply for economic hardship deferments in order to keep their institutional default rates down.  And these deferments are ridiculously easy to get.  According to the Harkin Committee,  sometimes it is just a matter of a phone call.

No--the federal student loan program is like an out-of-control express train that is headed straight for a cliff.  Congress doesn't care--those guys and gals plan on getting off at the next station. No, it is students--especially students attending for-profit colleges--who are going over the cliff with the train.

References

Josh Lederman and Philip Elliott. Obama Signs Student Loan Deal. MSN Money, August 9, 2013. Accesible at: http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20130809&id=16792937

The Bomb That Failed to Explode: Why Didn't the Senate Report on For-Profit Colleges Provoke Public Outrage?

Senator Tom Harkin
 

In July 2012, an important U.S. Senate Committee, chaired by Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa, issued a lengthy report on for-profit colleges and universities.  This report examined records of 30 for-profit institutions that enrolled a total of 1.1 million students and found enormous problems in the for-profit sector of higher education.

Among the report's startling revelations, were the following:

• High costs. The average cost of associate degrees from the 30 for-profit colleges it examined was four times higher than the cost of receiving a comparable degree from a community college. (p. 41)
• Poor student outcomes. According to the report, most students who enrolled in these institutions "do not graduate."  Of 1.1 million students enrolled in 2008 and 2009, almost 600,000 had withdrawn from their studies by 2010. (p. 17)
• Inordinate appropriation of taxpayer resources. Although for-profit institutions only enroll about 10-13 percent of higher education students, they receive about a quarter of federal student aid money. (p. 19)
• High default rates. Although the Department of Education reported recently  that almost 20 percent of students who attended for-profit institutions defaulted within three years after beginning the repayment phase, it estimates that 46 percent of students who borrowed money to attend for-profit institutions will eventually default on their loans. (p. 23)
• Low spending on instruction.  The for-profit institutions examined by Senator Harkin's committee spent more on marketing and recruiting students than they spend on instruction.
• Excessive executive compensation.  Average CEO compensation for the thirty for-profit institutions that the Senate Committee examined was over $7 million! (p. 3)

Given the Senate report's shocking findings, why wasn't there a public outcry to clean up higher education's for-profit sector? Why wasn't federal legislation passed to better regulate the for-profit colleges or even eliminate them from the federal student aid program?  Why--more than a year after this report was issued--has nothing been done about the rapacious for-profit colleges and universities?

I think there are several reasons why Senator Harkin's report had such a small impact.

The report was too long. First, the report was too long, and its length discouraged people from reviewing it thoroughly.  Although it is accessible on the web, the entire report--including appendices--was more than 2500 pages long.

Senator Harkin's committee pulled its punches. Second, I think the report was overly restrained in reporting its findings given the explosive content of its report. For example, on page 2 of this 2500 page tome, the Committee said that "[f]or profit colleges have an important role to play in higher education," and that the non-profit and public colleges can't handle the growing demand for higher education on their own. 

This conciliatory stance implies that the nation needs for-profit higher education institutions; indeed we can't get along without them.  Personally, I don't think that's true. Surely our public and non-profit colleges and universities can meet the nation's demands for post-secondary education.  And if they can't, the federal government would do well to give the public and non-profit sectors more resources than to send $32 billion a year to for-profit colleges with their overall record of poor performance.

The committee made puffball recommendations. Finally, Senator Harkin's committee made puffball recommendations for reform--far too mild given the serious problems that the committee documented.  Let's face it--if 46 percent of students who borrow money to attend for-profit institutions will eventually default on their loans, then the for-profit sector is not doing a good job in preparing students for the workforce.  That fact alone requires drastic action.

Nevertheless, Senator Harkin's committee only made timid and uninspired recommendations for reform like enhanced transparency, an online student complaint clearinghouse, and improved default tracking. (pp. 13-14)

The bomb that failed to explode

Senator Harkin and his Senate Committee had an opportunity to raise the alarm about the for-profit higher education industry that has hurt millions of students who paid far too much for educational experiences that didn't prepare them for good jobs. Anyone who reads the report carefully and grasps its implications can see that the report is a bombshell.

Unfortunately, this opportunity was squandered.  Senator Harkin's report was a bomb that failed to explode.

References

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success. 112 Congress, 2d Session, July 30, 2012.

Richard Cordray, New Director of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is Clueless About the Student Loan Crisis

CFPB's Richard Cordray: Clueless

First, the good news. The nation's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a new director--Richard Cordray; and he is worried about the college loan crisis.  Now the bad news. Mr. Cordray is apparently clueless about how to address this problem.

In an interview with USA Today, Mr. Cordray made clear that the CFPB is concerned about young people who have taken on high levels of debt to attend college.  "Their lives are effectively ruined or certainly potentially held back for many years," Cordray told USA Today. According to a CFPB report, many young people have been forced to postpone buying a home, starting a business or having a family by their massive student loans.

So what does Mr. Corday suggest we do about it?  More education! 

That's right, the CFPB is encouraging better financial education for young college students, including the use of its "Know Before You Owe" online financial aid shopping tool. 

Thanks, Richie, for warning people to be more careful when they take out student loans. 

And what is Mr. Cordray's other suggestion for dealing with the student loan crisis? He advises more borrowers to take advantage of the government's extended loan repayment plans.  Instead of paying loans off in ten years, more debtors should pay a percentage of their income toward paying off their loans over a period of 20 or 25 years.  In other words, he has bought into the sharecropper solution to the student loan crisis.  Just pay a portion of your income to the government over a majority of your working life. 

Thanks again, Richie. That's really helpful.

Not surprisingly, the CFPB's advice fits exactly with the higher education industry's stance on the student loan crisis.  This gigantic problem can be fixed, the colleges' trade organizations say, by giving students more information about borrowing money to attend college and then encouraging students to enroll in long-term income-based repayment plans to pay off their debt.

This stance relieves colleges and universities from reining in their costs, and it relieves the government from any responsibility for effectively regulating the for-profit college sector, where student-loan abuses are most prevalent.

Frankly, this country doesn't need a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau if it is just going to perpetuate the status quo and parrot the stance of the rapacious higher education industry.  If the CFPB is going to effectively address the student loan crisis, it should do these things:

1) Insist that the Department of Education accurately report the student loan default rate--the percentage of people who default over the life of the loan repayment period.  It should also insist on an accurate accounting of the people who are not making loan repayments because they obtained financial hardship deferments.

2) Advocate for amending the Bankruptcy Code to allow distressed student loan debtors to discharge their loans in bankruptcy under the same terms available for discharging other nonsecured debt.

3) Insist on legislation to stop the government from garnishing Social Security checks of elderly student-loan debtors who defaulted on their loans.

And of course there are a host of other things the CFPB can do to address the student-loan crisis besides service a "Know Before You Owe" project. 

But perhaps I'm being unfair to the CFPB. After all, it also operates a complaint department.  If you have a complaint about your student loans,  just call the CFPB's 800 number: 1-800-TUF-LUCK. 

References

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Know Before You Owe: Student Loan Project. Accessible at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/students/knowbeforeyouowe/

Jayne O'Donnell. Consumer protection chief talks student loans. USA Today, August 5, 2013, p. 3B.

President Obama Vows to Help the Middle Class: He Should Tackle the For-Profit Trade Schools

President Obama would like to help the middle class.
 

In a recent interview for the New York Times, President Obama promised to direct his energies to helping the middle class. "I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, to improve their prospects, to improve their security," the President vowed.

That's great news.  And I have a suggestion for how President Obama and Congress can work together to clean up the federal student loan program by stopping unscrupulous for-profit trade schools from injuring middle-class and working-class Americans.

Emily Rueb recently wrote an article for the Times about some of the victims of New York City's for-profit beauty schools. Three of these schools were shut down in the 1990s "after accusations and indictments that they misused federal student loan money." These schools targeted lower-class women, including immigrants, promising them lucrative careers in the beauty and hair-care industry. Students recruited by the schools took out federal student loans to pay their tuition. The Times reported that at least  35,000 people borrowed money to attend these for-profit schools at just 10 locations.

Unfortunately, many of the women who attended these schools received little or no value for their tuition money. For example, Maria Machado, an immigrant from El Salvador, who spoke no English and had only a sixth-grade education, took out a federal student loan to attend a beauty-school program at Wilfred Academy, a for-profit trade school. According to Ms. Machado, the school did not prepare her to take New York City's licensing exam, which she needed to practice her new profession; and she never passed it.

Eventually, Ms. Machado abandoned her plans to pursue a career in the beauty business. She did not discover that she was several thousand dollars in debt on her student loans until she applied for citizenship and started having her federal income-tax refunds seized by the federal government.

According to the New York Times article, Wilfred Academy went out of business after it was found guilty of falsifying student-loan applications and misusing federal student loan money. But Wilfred Academy's closure had no impact on Ms. Machado's loan obligations.

Fortunately, Ms. Machado and several other victims of for-profit trade schools were able to get their student loans forgiven under the Department of Education's so-called "false-certification discharge" provision, which allows the government to forgive student loans taken out by people who attended a school that falsely certified that people who had not graduated from high school or obtained GED  certificates could benefit from the school's training program.

But get this. Ms. Machado remained liable on student loans taken out to attend a defunct trade school that provided her with little or no benefits for 23 years before she finally managed to get her loans forgiven. During that period, the government seized several of her federal income tax refund checks, and of course her credit was severely damaged.

Ms. Machado was fortunate to have gotten legal assistance from the New York Legal Assistance Group, a public-interest legal assistance organization. Otherwise, she would probably still be liable for her student loans

Obviously, Maria Machado had been treated unfairly by the Department of Education. DOE obviously knew that Wilfred Academy had been found guilty of misusing federal student loan money and falsifying student loan applications.  And DOE had the names of all the schools' students who had taken out federal student loans.

But DOE used the information it had on Wilfred Academy's former students to unleash debt collectors on these hapless  women and seize their income tax refunds rather than inform them they had a right to seek a discharge of their loans under the government' own "false-certification discharge" program. As Ms. Conner put it, "They [DOE] have this information, which they use for collection, but when it comes time to educate debtors, they don't."

This brings me to President Obama's recent promise to work with Congress to help the middle class. Helping people like Maria Machado is an obvious way to fulfill that promise. President Obama should actively work for passage of legislation that would kick the for-profit colleges and trade schools out of the federal student loan program.  Working class and middle class people should not even have the opportunity to go into debt to attend a for-profit post-secondary institution or trade school when there are so many public educational institutions and nonprofit colleges that are capable of meeting their educational needs at a lower cost.

Of course the for-profit institutions are politically powerful. They employ lobbyists and make strategic campaign contributions to powerful members of Congress.  President Obama and Congress may not have the political courage to shut down the for-profit education industry.

But President Obama and Congress should at least act to make sure that students who were victims of unscrupulous for-profit trade schools are relieved of their student-loan obligations just as soon as DOE knows that they have been victimized. Victims of worthless for-profit training programs should not be hounded by government-sponsored debt collectors for 20 years.

Surely, President Obama agrees with me about this, and surely he has the power to correct the injustices that were outlined in Ms. Rueb's recent New York Times article.

If President Obama doesn't agree or if he is powerless to help people like Maria Machado, then he should stop talking about helping the middle class.  Because if President Obama  can't fix this obvious problem with the federal student loan program, he can't fix anything.

 References

Jackie Calmes and Michael D. Shear. Obama Says Income Gap is Fraying U.S. Social Fabric. New York Times, July 27, 2013.

Emily S. Rueb. Promised Better Life By Beauty Schools, Graduates Have Little Training and Lasting Debt. New York Times, July 29, 2013, p. A12.

Memo to Senator Elizabeth Warrren: The Student Loan Program Doesn't Have the Sniffles; It Has Cancer

Don't get me wrong. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been a faithful and sincere advocate for indebted college students.  Likewise, the New York Time has repeatedly editorialized against abuses in the student loan program, and its reporters have done a great job documenting some of those abuses.

Just a little case of the sniffles?
photo credit: politico.com

But for Senator Warren and the New York Times to state that the federal government is making a profit on the federal student loan program shows how ignorant they are about the true state of that program.

Senator Warren, advocating for lower student-loan interest rates, stated emphatically that the government is making a profit on the new interest rate that went in effect on July 1. “Instead of helping our students, the government is making a profit on student loans,” Warren told a group of young people.  That is wrong, Warren declared. “That’s more than wrong. It’s obscene.”

And the New York Times is also under the mistaken impression that the government is turning a profit on student loans.  In an editorial entitled "The Student Loan Debacle," the Times cited a report from the Congressional Budget Office that concluded the government will make $184 billion on loans issued over the next ten years if it continues charging the current student-loan interest rate.

Of course, the CBO report is a complete fantasy. You can go on the web and read many excellent critiques of the CBO's accounting practices with regard to that report.  But you don't have to do that to know that all the talk about the government making a profit on student loans--obscene or otherwise--is pure baloney.

Let's look at some simple facts. Less than two weeks ago, the Ombudsman for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--a federal agency--said that total outstanding student-loan indebtedness had grown 20 percent in just 18 months!  The Ombudsman estimates the total student loan debt at 1.01 trillion.

We know that the amount of money students borrow from the federal student loan program has gone up every year for a long time now, and that the average amount students borrow has gone up as well.

Finally, and most importantly, we know the student-loan default rate is going up.  The government puts the default rate at 13 percent based on the number of borrowers who default during the first three years of the repayment period. But everyone knows the real default rate is much higher.  (I have written about this many times.)

Do you see any profit for the government in any of this? Of course not.If Senator Warren and the New York Times really believe the federal government is making a profit from the program, then they've failed to grasp the fact that the government is losing billions of dollars due to student-loan defaults.

The current Congressional debate about the proper interest rate for student loans is a side show. Obviously, it would be a good thing for students if interest rates are kept low. But keeping interest rates low for future students does nothing for the millions of people who have already defaulted on their student loans.

Frankly, it disturbs me to hear Senator Warren demonstrate such a shocking lack of understanding about the federal student loan crisis.  Or perhaps she understands the crisis but is afraid to speak out more forthrightly because a big part of her constituency base is in Boston, with its large number of colleges and universities. Many of those colleges could not survive without the federal student loan program.

But Senator Warren came to the U.S. Senate with a reputation for being a courageous and vigorous advocate for the poor and middle class families. If she wants to keep that reputation, she needs to push legislation far more radical than simply keeping interest rates low for student loans. 

What should she do?

• Senator Warren should support passage of  a law that will allow insolvent student-loan debtors to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy.
• She needs to push for repeal of the 2005 law that makes it almost impossible for people to discharge student loans from private lenders like Wells Fargo and Bank of America.
• Senator Warren should propose legislation to protect elderly insolvent student-loan debtors from having their Social Security checks garnished.
• Finally, she needs to introduce legislation that will give student-loan debtors the right to sue colleges that have engaged in misrepresentation and fraud regarding their student aid practices.

Advocating for lower student-loan interest rates is simply tinkering around the edge of the student loan crisis.  We must remember that the student loan program is not a healthy entity with a little case of the sniffles. It is a cancer that is destroying the lives of millions of Americans.

 

 References

Editorial. The Student Loan Debacle. New York Times, July 24, 2013, pa. A22.

Ruth Tam. Warren: Profits from student loans are 'obscene." Washington Post, July 17, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/17/warren-profits-from-student-loans-are-obscene/

Wayne Winegarden. Uncle Sam's Phantom Loan Revenues. Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2013. Accessible at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323394504578608071549952576.html

This explains so much! Lots of Obama's People Graduated From Elite Colleges

This explains so much!

I recall seeing a cartoon awhile back showing the puppet Ernie from Sesame Street at the doctor's office. Ernie and his doctor were viewing Ernie's x-ray, which showed a giant hand in Ernie's torso. "This explains so much," Ernie exclaimed.

Yes, and the National Journal's recent report showing where Obama administration officials went to college also explains a lot.  Among 250 prominent officials in the Obama administration, more received a graduate degree from Oxford University (the one in England) than any American public university.

More Obama officials got  their undergraduate degrees from Harvard than any other university.  Forty percent of the 250 Obama administrators got undergraduate degrees from Ivy League schools.  And if you added the one ones who went to other elite schools--Georgetown, University of Chicago, Williams, etc--I am sure we would find that more than half of them went to exclusive private colleges.

In my opinion, this is a bad thing and goes a long way toward explaining why the country is going to hell in a hand basket.

There is a common myth that people who graduate from elite colleges received an exceptional education and acquired skills and values that will make them valuable citizens.  But I don't think that's true. In fact,many of them acquire traits and outlooks that contribute to the degradation  of American culture.

Postmodernism. Most of the people who are schooled at our elite institutions are thoroughly indoctrinated  into the culture of postmodernism.  And what are the characteristics of postmodernism? Secularism (atheism); individualism (selfishness);  and relativism, the cynical worldview that there are no ultimate truths.

Without a moral compass to guide their lives, our postmodern elitists gravitate toward an obsessive drive for recognition, power, and gratification, which is portrayed so powerfully in the recent movie, The Ides of March.  In the beginning of the movie, the main character, played by Ryan Gosling, is a political idealist, but by the end he is a cynical, power-driven schemer, just like all the other political figures in the movie.

Provincialism. I received a doctorate from Harvard Graduate School of Education, which admittedly is the least prestigious school at Harvard; and so I won't say my experience was typical. Nevertheless, I was astonished by the provincialism of the people I met while I was at HGSE.

Most of them had only a hazy idea about United States history or geography. I think I could have given them a child's puzzle map of the United States and most of them would not have been able to put the states in their proper places.

We see this elite regionalism displayed when we look at where Obama's top advisers grew up. According to the National Journal report, half of the top people on Obama's second-administration team grew up in the Northeast corridor (including Maryland and Virginia) or oversees. Only 12 percent of his top people are from the South.

Racism and Bigotry. I also encountered a lot of racism and bigotry during the years I was at Harvard. Not the hard kind of bigotry that is stereotypically displayed in movies about the South, but a soft kind. People in my classes would make offhand remarks about the insensitivity of white males--the same people who would be sure to use the term "mentally challenged" instead of "retarded" when talking about people of limited intelligence.

And the obsession with affirmative action that infests our elite colleges is often nothing more than a thinly disguised contempt for working class white people. It would be one thing if affirmative action benefited a poor white kid who grew up in the Delta country of Arkansas without regard to race , but so often the beneficiary of affirmative action is a minority person who attended an elite private high school.

And bigotry toward Catholicism at our elite colleges? Hey, let's not go there. I've talked about that already.

Not Problem Solvers

It would be OK if Obama's top advisers all came from Harvard or some other elite school if these people were smarter than the rest of us.  But they are not.

Indeed, if Obama's advisers are so smart, what are we doing in Afghanistan?

If Obama's people are such great problem solvers, why haven't we taken one sensible step to solve the student-loan crisis or at least reduce the suffering of people who are overburdened by their college loans?

No Sense of Social Justice

Many of the graduates of our elite institutions believe they have a keen sense of social justice and are particularly sensitive to human rights issues.  But I don't think that is true either.

If these people have such a good sense of social justice, why is our economic system rigged such that pensioners and people on fixed incomes are forced put their retirement funds in the  risky stock market to get a decent return because the Fed keeps interest rates artificially low to benefit the banks?

And if Obama's people have such a keen pining for human rights, why won't Obama and his people allow Italy to extradite Robert Lady, the CIA operative who was convicted of involvement in a kidnapping in Milan?  How can the Obama administration howl for the rule of law when it comes to Edward Snowden while helping Robert Lady avoid the justice that was meted out for him in Italy.

And what about Guantanamo?

What about those drones?

No this country would be better off if we declared a moratorium on Ivy League graduates serving in any public office at the national level--and that includes the Supreme Court, which is stuffed with nine old fogies who all graduated from either Harvard Law School or Yale Law School.

I am only kidding of course. We can't ban people from public office just because they went to Harvard. My point, however is this: Our elite colleges are not preparing people to be good public servants. We need to put people in positions of authority who are truly civic minded, and many of the leaders we need received their education at good public universities, including the universities of the Midwest, the Rocky Mountain West, and the South.

References

Brian Resnick & Brian McGill. More Top Obama Officials Have Graduate Degrees from Oxford Than Any Public University in the United States. National Journal, July 19, 2013. Accessible at:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/decision-makers/more-top-obama-officials-have-graduate-degrees-from-oxford-than-any-public-university-in-the-united-states-20130719

American Universities Should Help the Christian Universities in Africa

Since 9/11, nothing has shocked me more than the recent news that militant Islamists attacked a boarding school in Nigeria, killing about 30 children. Most were burned alive when the attackers doused the children's residence hall with gasoline and set it afire. A few children were shot to death trying to escape--which was a mercy, I suppose.

And why were these children killed? Because they attended a Western school.

Let's Get Out of Afghanistan, Where Everybody Hates Us, and Help Christian Africa

When President Bush sent troops into Iraq, I remember thinking that he surely knew best. When President Obama doubled down in Afghanistan and sent 30,000 additional troops to the fight, I had my qualms; but again I figured his military people must know what they are doing.

And if President Obama--a Nobel Peace Prize winner, wanted to widen the war in Afghanistan, well then, that must be the right thing to do.

Aftermath of bombing at Catholic Church in Tanzania (AP photo)

But lately I've decided to do my own thinking, and I urge others to do the same. Surely even a child can see that a dozen years of warfare in Afghanistan--years during which we bribed the Pakistanis to allow us to pack supplies over the Khyber Pass and sent packets of cash to the Karzai regime--has accomplished nothing. The British and the Russians mucked around Afghanistan to their sorrow, and we too now know we made a mistake. We just don't have the courage to admit it.

Even a small-town college professor like me can see that the United States has sent men and women to die in the Middle East in support of various regimes that don't like us, don't respect us, and share none of our values. We've squandered our national wealth, our national power, and our role as a world leader by launching these disastrous military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile Militant Islam is making great strides in Africa.

Last May, terrorists threw a bomb into a crowd of worshippers at St. Joseph Mfanyakazi Catholic Church in the Tanzanian town of Arusha, killing two people. Tanzania is about evenly split between Christians and Muslims, and the two groups have lived together peacefully for many years. This incident of sectarian violence is deeply worrying.

And let's take a look at Mali. Although Mali is about 90 percent Muslim and only about 10 percent Christian, the two religious communities have lived together in relative harmony.

But that was before militant Islamists showed up and established a rump state, which they called Asawad. They imposed a harsh regime over the areas of Mali they controlled, even executing people The French did the right thing when they drove Islamic adventurers out of northern Mali earlier this year.

American Universities Could Help Strengthen African Higher Education

I am not a military person. Frankly, I don't know any more than the New York Times does about military strategy. But I am an educator, and I've spent some time observing African higher education, which has a very weak infrastructure.

The United States has excessive resources in the higher education realm. We've got more colleges and universities than we know what to do with. We should put some of them to work in Africa.

For several years, our elite institutions have been establishing branches in the Middle East. New York University is in Abu Dhabi. Carnegie Mellon University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Texas A & M are in Qatar. George Mason University was in Ras al Khaymah for a time.

Why are they there? To make money, of course. As Congressman Dana Rohrabacher observed, “A lot of these educators are trying to present themselves as benevolent and altruistic, when in reality, their programs are aimed at making money.”

I was briefly heartened by recent Reuters news story reporting that America's wealthiest universities have taken an interest in Africa. Before I read the article, I assumed that interest meant an educational interest. But no, university endowment funds want to invest in Africa because they think they can make money.

William McLean, who manages Northwestern University's huge endowment, put it this way in an interview with Reuters: "Our motivations are making some money."

But why don't American universities establish a philanthropic presence in the underdeveloped regions

Student Union Office
Uganda Martyrs University

of Africa by partnering with African universities to help them develop their infrastructures? After all, the African universities are struggling, and they could use some help from their American counterparts.

Which ones should we help? I can only comment on East Africa, but in the nations of Kenya, Tanzania and Kenya, the best and most respected universities are the ones begun by Christan denominations--particularly those founded by the Catholic Church. In general, the Christian universities in East Africa are more disciplined, more civic minded and less corrupt than the public institutions. Uganda Martyrs University, for example, is highly regarded as the most rigorous university in Uganda; and St. Augustine University in Mwanza, Tanzania is likewise well respected.

Strengthening Christian universities in Africa will strengthen African Christianity, which must be supported and maintained to preserve peace and stability in that part of the world A radical element is loose in Africa that is willing to burn children alive just for going to school. If American universities don't care about that, what do they care about?

References

Adamu Adamu, Michelle Faul. 29 boarding school students burned alive, shot dead by Islamists militants in Nigeria. NBCNews.com. July 6, 2013.

Jon Lee Anderson. Letter from Timbuktu: State of Terror. New Yorker, July 1, 2013, pp. 37-47.

Tamar Lewin. Universities Rush to Set Up Outposts Abroad, New York Times, February 10, 2008. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/education/10global.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Tosin Sulaiman. Insight--Africa makes the grade for richest U.S. university investors. Reuters, July 7, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/africa-endowments-idUSL5N0FB2IZ20130708