Lindsay McCluskey

Investing in Prisons Over Education is not Being Smart on Crime

2011-05-27T14:10:36-04:00

By Lindsay McCluskey and Robert Rooks

What does it mean to be "tough on crime"? Does "toughness" depend on how many people we imprison? Or should the indicator be whether our society combats crime at its root? Current policies point directly at the former option, but we need to be smarter on crime.

The United States leads the world in incarceration with 2.3 million people behind bars; while we are home to five percent of the world's population, we house 25 percent of its prisoners. That means that one in 31 adults in the United States is currently in prison, jail, or on probation or parole (1). Is this because we have a larger population than most countries and logically imprison more people? Nope. China's population is four times greater than ours, yet China imprisons one million less people, even with its draconian criminal laws. Are Americans inherently more violent than citizens in other countries? The fact that over half our inmates were convicted of non-violent drug offenses suggests that it has more to do with our criminal laws than our nature. Has the incarceration rate risen proportionally with our country's population growth? Well, between 1970 and 2000 the general population rose by less than 40 percent, yet our incarceration rate skyrocketed by 500 percent (2). So how did the world's greatest defender of freedom snatch freedom away from more of its citizens than the harshest of totalitarian states?

American lawmakers have criminalized a vast array of non-violent, victimless behavior involving narcotics. Drug arrests have more than tripled in the last 25 years, reaching a record high of 1.8 million in 2005 (3). These aren't the violent drug kingpins in Miami Vice or Bad Boys. In 2005, nearly 43 percent of all drug arrests were for marijuana offenses, the mere possession of which accounted for 79 percent of the growth in drug arrests in the 1990's (1). Today, over half of the 2.3 million people behind bars were convicted of non-violent drug offenses. More than half of federal offenders sentenced in 2002 were in the lowest criminal history category, and nearly 9 out of ten had no weapon involvement (2). Put simply, our elected officials have become obsessed with imprisoning low-level drug users. It has gotten so bad that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Brown v. Plata that the California prison system was so overcrowded that it violated the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

So what does this matter for higher education? Our unprecedentedly high inmate population is very expensive to maintain. The United States spends $70 billion a year on incarceration, $50 billion of which comes from state governments. This matters because $9 out of every $10 in state prison funding comes out of state general funds, the same accounts that fund higher education. So it should be of no surprise that in the last two decades, state spending on prisons grew at six times the rate of spending on higher education.

The Great Recession has done little to curb this trend. In 2009, despite the worst national economy in 30 years, 33 states spent a larger proportion of their general funds on prisons than in 2008. In fact, in fiscal year 2008, prisons' share of state general funds grew more than other category of state spending. At the same time, 2009 saw tuition hikes at public four-year colleges average over 6 percent, some reaching into the double-digits. Having to pay more for their college education than ever before, student borrowers now owe an average of $25,000 in loan debt. Today, Americans owe more in student loan debt than credit card debt, and the number is closing in fast on $1 trillion. Meanwhile, state legislators claim we have a "spending problem" while they cut higher education budgets and infuse prisons with ever more money.

We do not have a spending problem. Elected officials choose to terrify the electorate into supporting laws that lead to mass incarceration. There are compassionate and effective ways to wage the war on crime; politicians simply chose to ignore them. While we've outlined many of the problems, below are a few possible solutions to remedy our justice system -- making it "smart on crime" rather than "tough on crime".

More than fifty percent of all prison and jail inmates have mental health or drug problems. Over half of female inmates have been physically or sexually abused. Half of all inmates in state and federal prisons were abused or dependent on drugs before they were imprisoned. One would expect policymakers to invest in rehabilitation efforts that address the root causes of why criminals initially turned to crime or drugs. Also, drug rehabilitation is seven times more effective for dealing with nonviolent drug offenders than prison. Yet today, only one in seven prison inmates are receiving treatment, down from one in three inmates in 1991 (1).

Despite their proven ability to reduce recidivism, inmate educational and vocational training is severely restrictive and arbitrarily administered. A recent study by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) found that, of 43 states surveyed, 13 states accounted for 86 percent of all inmates enrolled in post-secondary education programs. In total, just six percent of all U.S. prison inmates were enrolled in a program during the 2009-10 academic year. Of that, less than a quarter obtained an associates or bachelor's degree.

Online courses would expand educational access to a large number of inmates, yet public officials don't like the idea of giving inmates access to the internet, and no state has yet demonstrated the courage to implement a pilot program. Yet IHEP research analyst Brian Sponsler believes "the technology exists to provide online educational opportunities in an environment that doesn't sacrifice safety." Denying programs that would better the lives of countless flies in the face of every value our criminal justice system purports to uphold.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his famous Democracy in America that, "in no country is criminal justice administered with more mildness than in the United States." How far we've come since 1831. Today, we are the world leader in locking people up -- not because we have the world's largest supply of violent criminals, but because we have allowed our elected officials to criminalize the most trivial of actions. The ramifications of these eerily Orwellian laws have been dire for higher education, which has suffered immensely from depleted state coffers. Unless we drastically reform our spending priorities, and move toward "smart on crime" policies, our City on the Hill will continue to resemble Rikers Island instead of the Library of Alexandria.

Lindsay McCluskey is President of the United States Student Association. Robert Rooks is Director of the NAACP Criminal Justice Program.

1) Stevenson, Bryan, "Drug Policy, Criminal Justice and Mass Imprisonment." Global Commission on Drug Policies. January 2011
2) King, Ryan; Marc Mauer; Malcolm Young. "Incarceration and Crime: A Complex Relationship." The Sentencing Project. 2005.
3) Allen, Rob; Chris Hallam; Dave Bewley-Taylor. "The Incarceration of Drug Offenders: An Overview." International Centre for Prison Studies, Kings College, University of London. March 2009.

Graduating Off a Cliff: The Millennial Generation's Fight for Its Future

2011-04-18T08:42:30-04:00

Four-hundred student leaders of all political persuasions rallied on Capitol Hill recently, demanding public investment in higher education. They held a press conference and conducted 100 congressional visits. Their message?

"WTF."

That's right. WTF. Where's the Funding?

In the 1950s, college was practically free. Some of our parents and grandparents were able to attend a four-year state college for just $1,000 per year. That's tuition, room and board. This investment in education produced one of the greatest workforces in history and helped to create America's great middle class.

Today all we hear about is cuts, cuts and more cuts. You can't cut your way out of a recession. And you can't cut your way to growth. The way to get out of a recession and get out of debt is the same strategy our grandparents used to get out of the Great Depression: Invest in jobs. Invest in education. Invest in infrastructure and technology. Put people back to work. Stimulate the economy. Grow the tax base. That's how you cut the deficit. Not by cutting investments in jobs and education.

The Millennial Generation (born 1980-2000) is the largest, most diverse, most open-minded, most tech-savvy, most eco-conscious generation in American history. Millennials are also the most unemployed, in debt and generally screwed over. Despite their desire to contribute to this country's greatness, Millennials may be the first generation in decades to face worse economic prospects than our parents and even grandparents.

Millennials deserve better. The Millennial generation can help lay the foundation of American prosperity by driving a vibrant green energy economy; reinventing and rebuilding our infrastructure; galvanizing the immense potential of the private sector through fresh innovation and creativity; contributing to a broadened tax base; and answering JFK's call to service.

The youth unemployment rate is double the national average, with African-Americans between 16-24 shouldering a crushing 33 percent unemployment rate. Latino and Asian youth suffer from above average unemployment rates as well. The average college student borrower graduates nearly $25,000 in debt; Americans now owe more in student loan debt than credit card debt.

To make matters worse, Congressional Republicans are insisting on slashing $875 from the maximum Pell Grant award, effectively ending thousands of struggling students' college education. In 43 statehouses, budgets are being balanced on the backs of students and working families through tuition hikes, funding cuts, or both. The supposed beneficiaries of these cuts? You guessed it. Youth and future generations. Not only are they stealing kids lunch money. They're saying it's for their own good.

What will the Millennial Generation do? What young people always do: Innovate and fight back. Students are piloting new attention-getting tactics like Briefcase Brigades. On their upcoming national action April 27, youth and students across the country will dress up for job interviews, some with briefcases, and visit local offices of members of Congress. They will ask their elected reps to stop cutting education and jobs. Photos and videos will be posted in social media. Briefcase Brigades will be followed by graduation actions. Summer actions will build up to bigger actions in the Fall.

Young people and students aren't asking for any special favors or handouts. They just want the same opportunities that the Baby Boomers and other previous generations had: The opportunity to work hard, get an education, make a living and give their kids a better life. In short, a chance to live the American Dream.

The jobs and education crises are two of the biggest issues impacting young people. If you want to join the growing youth movement for education and jobs, please watch this video and sign up for a local Briefcase Brigade here.

The Continuing Resolution Devastates College Opportunities for Young People

2011-02-22T16:48:26-05:00

Challenging times such as these present decision-makers with opportunities to either deeply assess the problems within our society and craft public policies to alleviate them or to shallowly continue the status quo beefed up with soaring but empty rhetoric. On Friday, February 18, the House of Representatives was faced with one of those moments and chose the latter. By a vote of 235-189, the House passed HR 1, the continuing resolution, which cuts $11 billion, or 16 percent, from the Department of Education. If a budget is truly a document of priorities, it is clear that the 112th House of Representatives does not value education.

The cuts worsen the closer one examines them. HR 1 slashes the Pell Grant, which over nine million low-income students use to attend college, by 15 percent. This cut means a reduction in the maximum award amount, which is administered to the students most in need of financial assistance, by $845, bringing their financial aid down from $5,550 to $4,705. The average Pell Grant award amount will drop by $785. Being able to use this money for textbooks, transportation, child care, or other costs can make the difference between staying in and dropping out of school. A reduction of this magnitude in the Pell Grant means that the House's continuing resolution will effectively end the college education for many low-income students.

Most Pell Grant recipients come from families whose total annual income is around $20,000, meaning programs such as this are the only things keeping their heads enough above water to stay in school. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education has called the Pell Grant program the "cornerstone of African American higher education," because 46 percent of black undergraduates receive the Pell Grant, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. 69 percent of African Americans who don't graduate from college say it was due to cost; 49 percent of Latino youth put off college due to cost. In HR 1, the House of Representatives told the American people that these students are not worth their investment.

The Pell Grant, while the cornerstone of federal financial aid, is not the only program that suffered an unnecessary funding blow. HR 1 also slashes $25 million from TRIO, a federal program that reduces economic, social, academic, and cultural barriers to higher education for traditionally underrepresented and disadvantaged youth. Unbelievably, the legislation also eliminates the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG), a program in which federal funds promote access to postsecondary education by providing critical support to students with the lowest Expected Family Contribution.

Representative Steve King (R-IA) sponsored two amendments that block funding and implementation of the student aid reform legislation President Obama signed into law last spring in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. This policy takes the tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies going to private lenders who take advantage of students and redirects the funding to the Pell Grant, minority-serving institutions, and other critical higher education programs. By blocking this law, the House's continuing resolution removed one of the only policies protecting young people from unscrupulous lenders making money off of students and families struggling to pay for college.

Protecting higher education spending isn't just the right thing to do, it's the politically popular move as well. A recent Harris poll, released Wednesday, February 16, found that 71% of Americans polled oppose cutting federal education spending, more than any other program except social security. Congressional leadership would do well to reexamine what 'the American people' really want in a federal budget.

Representative John Kline (R-MN), chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, sponsored an amendment to prohibit the Department of Education from implementing regulations on higher education institutions, most notably for-profit colleges, that graduate too many students with unusable degrees and mountains of debt. Ten percent of students attend for-profit colleges yet account for almost half of all loan defaults and a quarter of all students graduating from these colleges default on their loans within three years. Despite this clear misuse of public funds, the Pell Grant and other federal student aid dollars make up an average of 77 percent of for-profit colleges' income. A lion's share of the Pell Grant goes to these institutions, many of which are destroying the lives of targeted low-income students. The House resolution makes sure that the federal government does nothing to stop this.

In offering his amendment to end one of the most popular provisions of the health care law that allows young people to remain on their parents' health plans until the age of 26, Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) stated that kids don't need to be running home to mommy and daddy until they're 26 for health care. The recession has left college graduates who have taken out mountains of debt without employment or health care coverage. This law was passed in response to this reality, not to pamper kids who just don't want to work. It's ironic that members of Congress are accusing young people of being lazy for not getting their own health insurance when they are simultaneously devastating the very financial aid programs that would give students the tools to graduate from college and get a job with health insurance.

In all, HR 1 shows just how little the 112th House of Representatives prioritizes young people and a college education. Destroying the means to increase college access and affordability is a sure way to undermine the goal of strengthening America's economic and social foundation. USSA looks to the Senate to champion college students and fiscal prudence by actually prioritizing the nation's youth in its version of the resolution.

Higher Education: Great State of the Union Material, Even Better Public Policy

2011-01-26T16:00:49-05:00

As Nick Anderson meticulously pointed out in yesterday's Washington Post, education is the linchpin of good political messaging, especially in a State of the Union address. Higher education has increasingly become the key to achieving the American dream and American prosperity in a global economy and has thus enjoyed constant praise from our presidents in their most public speeches. Young people call on President Obama to not just echo past commitments to education investments, but to back it up with real policy that makes college more affordable and accessible.

President Clinton spoke of a "21st Century revolution in education" that will make "college affordable to all" in his 2000 address to Congress. President Bush stated in 2001 that "the highest percentage increase in our budget should go to our children's education. Education is my top priority." He went on in his 2006 State of the Union to say that "our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hard-working, ambitious people." President Obama put education investment in the forefront of his economic agenda, saying in his 2009 State of the Union that "in a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity -- it is a prerequisite." He spoke of "half of the students who begin college never finish" being "a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow."

Recent presidents have enjoyed some success in delivering on these sweeping rhetorical promises, most notably President Obama's student aid reform law that infused billions of dollars into higher education. But the current debates over discretionary spending are threatening the strength of his resolve to "lead the world in college graduation rates by 2020."

Today, the House of Representatives is expected to pass House Resolution 38, "a resolution to reduce non-security spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less." If enacted, this spending reduction would mean a 17 percent decrease in federal student financial assistance, including a $1,500 cut to the maximum Pell Grant award, eliminating the opportunity to attend or stay in college for hundreds of thousands of low-income students. The Pell Grant has already plummeted from covering 72 percent of the cost of college in 1976 to around 30 percent today. What happened to that bipartisan commitment to a "revolution in education" or "education is my top priority"? 2008 may not sound like a long time ago or a huge decrease in funding, but we've suffered a horrific recession since then, putting millions out of work and back to school and leaving state governments unable to guard against rising college costs. And a huge chunk of the funds states are spending on higher education -- $2.5 billion -- came from the federal government through the stimulus package, which has run out.

The impacts of our leaders falling short on their education commitments are real and imminent. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce concluded that by 2018 the U.S. economy will have 22 million new jobs for college-educated workers but that due to decreasing higher education investments, the U.S. is on track to being almost eight million college-educated workers short of filling this workforce capacity. We will be running a deficit of 300,000 college graduates every year from now until 2018. In order to make up the difference and meet President Obama's goal of leading the world in college graduation rates, the U.S. needs to produce 8.2 million college graduates in the next decade, which will require an increase in higher education spending of $158 billion. While the federal government has recently invested about $40 billion into federal aid programs over the next ten years, that still leaves over a $100 billion to be made up for by state governments. But the National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers recently reported that in fiscal year 2010, 36 states cut higher education funding and 31 plan to impose additional cuts in fiscal year 2011. These cuts will only be further exacerbated if the House's spending resolution becomes law of the land.

Higher education prioritization makes for great messaging in the State of the Union, but it makes even better public policy. If job growth through innovation and fiscal responsibility are going to be tonight's theme, then higher education investment needs to be the teeth behind the rhetoric.

Where There's a 'Will' There's a 'Why'

2010-10-26T13:36:16-04:00

As predictable as night following day, the mainstream media's messaging about young voters this year has been was the 2008 election a fluke? Was America's youth simply excited about candidate Barack Obama's dynamism and charisma and not the policy platforms on which he sought office? As irritating as it is to lend this question legitimacy by answering it, as the president of the United States Student Association (USSA), the nation's oldest, largest, and most inclusive student organization, I feel it's time to respond.

To begin, we cannot discount the amazing work being done by students nationwide. The Oregon Student Association has registered just shy of 40,000 new voters this year, which is basically an entire university's worth of people. North Carolina Central University students rallied last week with Governor Bev Perdue and Congressman David Price in an effort to educate students about the election and to encourage them to vote. There is amazing electoral organizing happening on campuses everyday in this country, too often going unnoticed by the media.

Still, there is noticeably less enthusiasm in young people for today's candidates than there was two years ago. While those running for office could draw oceans of inspired young people to civic events and rallies in 2008, this time around it seems only pop celebrities and comedians can do the trick.

Why? Because politicians aren't effectively communicating with students. Thus far, they have talked about all the recent legislative victories making college more affordable and accessible: student aid reform, financial aid funding in the stimulus package, FAFSA simplification, Income-Based Repayment, and so on. While these victories are important, the way in which they are justified is critical when communicating with students. Candidates need to address why laws impacting students are being passed, not just will they help us. For instance, it isn't only will student aid reform make college more affordable, we know it will; candidates must also discuss why student aid reform passed in the first place. Why invest so much money and political capital into increasing college graduation rates? If it's so that the United States can compete with China in the global economy, you can count us out. Higher education is more than an economic tool to boost our standing in the G8. Students deserve an affordable college experience because a higher education allows people to pursue the American Dream, not just because it makes the country financially competitive. So focusing exclusively on the economic benefits of a higher education when discussing student legislative victories is not only down-playing the value of a college education, it's losing the interest and investment of young people in electoral politics.

At a time when every political issue is being traced back to how it will financially help the United States, candidates' arguments for investing in students is like a manufacturer wanting to produce more goods than the business down the street. The more students on the college conveyor belt, the more skilled workers will grow the economy in an increasingly competitive global market. In 2008, candidate Obama mobilized the youth vote successfully because he made us feel like we had intrinsic worth; young people were worth listening to and sending to college because it was the right thing to do, not because it was economically beneficial. So today, when incumbents and office-seekers remind us that college is necessary because we're being beaten by the Chinese and Germans, it's no wonder that young people aren't compelled to then run to the polls en masse.

Despite the media's instance to the contrary, young people are not apathetic when it comes to electoral organizing. Electoral politics is a two-way street; in order to get young people out to vote, candidates must honestly and authentically engage young people and address student issues. Stopping at 'will' a policy help young people is not good enough; candidates must tell us 'why,' then perhaps we'll be inspired. After all, when there's a 'will' and 'why,' there's a vote.

A DREAM Undeterred

2010-10-15T16:52:52-04:00

Langston Hughes once posed the elusive question, "What happens to a dream deferred?" Well, in the face of a college education being denied to 65,000 undocumented students every year, the question federal legislators should ask themselves is how are the dreams of undocumented youth undeterred after a decade of legislative lethargy? The answer: Because young advocates of the DREAM Act, documented and not, believe we are fighting for the fundamental right of everyone to be able to pursue a higher education.

Let me back up.

The DREAM Act, or Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, which was first introduced in 2001, allows undocumented youth who were brought to the U.S. as minors to be eligible for federal financial aid and in-state tuition or military service if they complete high school and don't have a criminal record. Once in college or the military, they have six years of conditional residency, after which they become permanent legal residents if, within the six years, they complete two years of college or military service. Essentially, the bill allows the best and brightest undocumented youth to obtain their legal status through a college education or military service. Earned residency through civic participation that benefits the United States. Pretty basic stuff, right? And in times like these, when we need more wealthy taxpayers to boost revenues and troops to increase our ever-thinning volunteer military that's fighting the longest war in U.S. history, what lawmaker wouldn't jump at the chance to pass a bill that does both?

Forty-three, apparently. The DREAM Act was recently before the U.S. Senate as an amendment to S. 3454, a military authorization bill, which was voted down on a procedural technicality 56-43 -- deferred, you might say. How did it happen? Let's break it down.

Proponents of the DREAM Act argued mainly three points. The first is that the DREAM Act is good for the economy. It's hard to disagree with that, as lifetime earnings for someone with a bachelors degree is about one million dollars more than someone who has a high school diploma. Add to that, the 825,000 people who would probably obtain legal status from the DREAM Act would generate an estimated 1.38 trillion dollars over their working lifetimes. To context that number, the U.S. has spent a little less than that on military operations since 9/11. The DREAM Act would infuse an extraordinary amount of money into the U.S. economy.

A college education also stems the cyclical tide of poverty in low-income families, which we all know would reduce government spending on social programs. The percentage of children in low-income families drops from 56 percent in families where parents have just a high school diploma to 24 percent if the parents has at least some college. The importance of a higher education is even more pronounced for children of undocumented parents. Children whose parents are undocumented, even if the children are citizens, are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as children in families with full citizenship. All of these statistics are exacerbated by the U.S. Census Bureau's recent report that 44 million Americans, or one in seven, is living in poverty, including one in five children. Keep in mind this reflects citizens who are traditionally much better off than their undocumented neighbors. So with access to college, fewer undocumented families will be caught in the impoverished undertow of society's neglect and given a chance to pull themselves into the middle class.

Argument two is that the military is in dire need of more troops and the DREAM Act allows youth who are willing to fight and die for a country that refuses to legally recognize them to serve in our ranks. The U.S. really shouldn't be turning away people who want to serve while we're fighting two expensive, long, unpopular wars. Plus, if you're an undocumented young person who loves this country enough to want to serve despite the legal oppression and state-imposed limits on your aspirations, then you should at least be given an opportunity to sign-up.

Finally, there's the point that the DREAM Act is so popular and narrowly-tailored that it will be a finger in the leaking dyke as Congress prepares for comprehensive immigration reform. It would partially fix our universally-accepted-as-broken immigration system by allowing a few thousand bright young people to earn their legal status.

But that's where the mainstream advocacy ends. And that's why the DREAM Act continues to be deferred.

Senators Richard Durbin, Richard Lugar, Harry Reid, and all the other praiseworthy proponents of the DREAM Act have been listening to economists analyze the financial benefits of more college graduates in our country, military leaders discuss the need to increase our troops, and immigration experts talk about how the system is about to shatter. Who they haven't been listening to is the the young people, many of whom are undocumented, talk about why they risk being harassed, ostracized, and even deported to go to college and advocate for the DREAM Act. Sure, they've been ammunition for anecdotal tear-jerkers on the Senate floor, but have their substantive messages been considered by lawmakers? No. Because nowhere in this debate is the DREAM Act being justified as the promotion of education as a fundamental right. Yes, it will improve our economy, increase the number of troops, and smooth immigration reform, but none of these are the main reason to pass the legislation. They are important collateral justifications, but fall short of the fact that everyone has the right to reach their potential through a higher education and gain legal status in the country where they were raised.

Moving beyond the pragmatic and engaging this issue on the moral stage of individual rights is not only the right thing to do, it is the only way the DREAM Act will pass. When Senator John McCain opposes legislation that would allow young patriotic men and women to serve in the military and Senator Mitch McConnell opposes a bill that would lead to more wealthy Americans for whom he could cut taxes, you know you've lost the pragmatic battle. When 'moderate' Senators applaud the civically engaged undocumented youth in press releases but vote against their bill on technicalities, you've lost the pragmatic battle.

So why not fight it on moral grounds? Opponents to the DREAM have successfully deferred it for a decade, but when does deferred become denied? Opponents said the DREAM Act was too expensive yesterday and are saying it was incorrectly attached as an amendment today. Why will they oppose it tomorrow? If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result, then attempting to pass the DREAM Act only as an economically and militarily sound policy is insane. So listen to the students, we've been shouting long enough.

It's no excuse to say students haven't been vocal on this issue. Since 1947 the United States Student Association has advocated for education as a right and for the past several years the DREAM Act has been endorsed by the National Student Congress for that reason. In the two weeks leading up to the Senate's vote on S. 3454, youth DREAM Act advocates made over 335,000 senatorial contacts, including calls, letters, and office visits, and organized actions in dozens of states calling for passage of the legislation. Undocumented students are getting arrested across the nation, some literally risking their lives, to bring attention to their right to pursue a higher education so they can achieve the American dream. Beyond just the DREAM Act, the student movement in general is defined as an effort to make education a right. In Massachusetts, for example, students marched 100 miles from Amherst to Boston for the Day to Defend Public Education, bringing attention to devastating budget cuts putting a college degree out of reach for too many young people.

The DREAM Act would improve our society in many ways, but its reason for passing is found not in any tangible benefit to our country; rather, it should pass because everyone has the right to an education and an equal opportunity to succeed. Those who would qualify for the DREAM Act simply want to stay in the country they've lived in since childhood and pursue their potential through military service or a college degree. Champions of undocumented students in Congress can talk about why it makes legislative sense until they are blue in the face, but until they listen to the voices of those directly impacted by the legislation and advocate for the DREAM Act because it advances education as a right, the dream will be deferred for undocumented youth. Students have been undeterred for a decade, waiting for our legislative champions to catch on. Last month's asinine debate over procedural technicalities demonstrated the urgency of moving the DREAM Act as a moral imperative.

What happens to a dream deferred? It is realized by the undeterred.

Students Are Voting Again to Build a Movement

2010-08-25T12:44:44-04:00

Students are voting again in 2010 because we're building a movement. This movement did not begin with the 2008 vote campaign, and it certainly did not end with the election of Barack Obama. It is a movement to make education a right and has been a driving force behind social progress for decades. We are fortunate enough to be organizing in a time of great opportunity and have capitalized on the leadership of President Obama and members of Congress. The passage of student financial aid reform, the biggest investment in higher education since the GI bill, is a testament to this. However, we are simply passing through one era of this movement and have a responsibility as organizers to build upon past victories. We are voting again, not just to elect members of Congress who will champion higher education causes, but also to construct a more perfect framework of student activism that will lead to students winning on issues directly affecting young people.

This is no lofty goal born of soaring but empty rhetoric. The 2010 election provides us with a strategic moment to make vast strides in the student movement. A strong foundation of grassroots organizing was laid during the 2008 election which was then utilized to mobilize young people around student aid reform, protesting budget cuts and tuition hikes, and making huge advancements for the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. These efforts amplified the student voice worldwide and won some key victories in college affordability. The momentum from those campaigns must now be carried forward to the 2010 election so that additional victories will be won in 112th Congress.

We are continuing our vote work for the new batch of young voters as well. There are around 9.5 million eligible voters today who were too young to vote in 2008, and during such a tight election, each new voter can make a huge difference. Additionally, it is well-known that those who vote early continue to be civically engaged throughout their lives. So by engaging, educating, registering, and turning these new students out to vote, we are helping to cultivate a new generation of organizers.

We are organizing to vote again because, when we don't, candidates simply ignore young people. The 2009 New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections clearly showed that candidates don't address youth issues if they are not forced to. There are too many important issues facing students both immediately and in the long-term health of the country's education system to allow candidates to ignore us. Two-thirds of students are forced to take out loans to pay for college, driving the average borrower nearly $25,000 into debt. That is on top of youth, especially youth of color, suffering from an unemployment rate much higher than the national average. Undocumented students are still being denied their right to a higher education because of partisan bickering. More than 30 states cut higher education budgets last year and 30 will do it again this year. These are issues we have to force candidates to address if we want to change them.

We are in the midst of a student movement to make education a right, and we are voting and organizing in 2010 to ensure that the pathway before us continues to lead us towards that ultimate vision.

Cross posted on Vote Again 2010

StudentsVote! 2010

2010-08-24T16:33:28-04:00

Each election, the United States Student Association (USSA) works to mobilize students nationwide through our electoral action project, commonly known as StudentsVOTE! Through effective grassroots organizing, students conduct voter registration, voter education, and get-out-the-vote campaigns to not only elect higher education champions, but also to build an organizing foundation on which to win future student victories. In 2008, USSA registered 110,000 young people during our StudentsVOTE! campaign!

Below is our campaign video promoting StudentsVOTE! 2010. Learn more about StudentsVOTE! 2010 by visiting our campaign website.