Module Overview: Liberal and Market Models of Higher Education Policy Module Five focuses on two states, California and Minnesota, as the complexities of higher education policy are examined and the variety of political, social, economic, and environmental factors contributing to the ways in which policies are developed are discussed. These policies, in turn, deeply impact the higher education systems within both states, with a particularly strong influence on funding models for colleges and universities. Higher Education Policy in California The California Master Plan for Higher Education guided the development of three campus systems in California: the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges systems (St. John, Daun-Barnett, & Moronski-Chapman, 2013). Nearly four out of five college students in California attend one of the three public education systems and three out of every four bachelor degrees awarded annually are from either the UC or CSU systems (Johnson, 2014). Yet, the state is facing somewhat of an education crisis and Johnson projects a shortfall of one million college graduates by 2025. In recent years, the historic California model has broken down as the systems have been negatively impacted by the state’s fiscal woes. While colleges and universities have responded to funding cuts by reducing expenses, including cutting administrative costs and hiring more non-tenure track faculty, declines in state support have forced the UC system to increase tuition fees by 50% in three years while CSU fees have increase by 47% in the same period (Johnson, Cook, Murphy, and Weston, 2014). Students are increasingly becoming indebted in order to accomplish their educational goals in California; the average loan amounts among students have risen 36% between 2005 and 2010 (a figure adjusted for inflation) (Johnson, 2014). Hoping to save expenses, many students begin their college educations at California community colleges, which have become so overcrowded that in 2012, 137,000 students could not enroll into at least one class that they needed and community colleges resorted to “rationing” courses (Dellner, 2012). This evidence suggests new changes are needed in the California state system to support students at all levels of enrollment. In part, California’s steady decreases in higher education funding are a consequence of a need to fund other state services; for example, Johnson (2012) notes that from 2002 to 2012, state expenditures for higher education fell by close to 10% whereas expenditures for corrections and rehabilitation increased by 26%. Historical trends suggest that the state’s priorities began shifting from higher education toward corrections since the 1970s, even though the majority of Californians (68%) opposed spending cuts in higher education to reduce state budget deficits and 62% supported spending cuts in corrections to balance state budgets (Baldassare, Bonner, Pet ...

1. Module Overview:
Liberal and Market Models of Higher Education Policy
Module Five focuses on two states, California and Minnesota,
as the complexities of higher education policy are examined and
the variety of political, social, economic, and environmental
factors contributing to the ways in which policies are developed
are discussed. These policies, in turn, deeply impact the higher
education systems within both states, with a particularly strong
influence on funding models for colleges and universities.
Higher Education Policy in California
The California Master Plan for Higher Education guided the
development of three campus systems in California: the
University of California (UC), California State University
(CSU), and California Community Colleges systems (St. John,
Daun-Barnett, & Moronski-Chapman, 2013). Nearly four out of
five college students in California attend one of the three public
education systems and three out of every four bachelor degrees
awarded annually are from either the UC or CSU systems
(Johnson, 2014). Yet, the state is facing somewhat of an
education crisis and Johnson projects a shortfall of one million
college graduates by 2025.
In recent years, the historic California model has broken down
as the systems have been negatively impacted by the state’s
fiscal woes. While colleges and universities have responded to
funding cuts by reducing expenses, including cutting
administrative costs and hiring more non-tenure track faculty,
declines in state support have forced the UC system to increase
tuition fees by 50% in three years while CSU fees have increase
by 47% in the same period (Johnson, Cook, Murphy, and
Weston, 2014). Students are increasingly becoming indebted in
order to accomplish their educational goals in California; the
average loan amounts among students have risen 36% between
2005 and 2010 (a figure adjusted for inflation) (Johnson, 2014).

2. Hoping to save expenses, many students begin their college
educations at California community colleges, which have
become so overcrowded that in 2012, 137,000 students could
not enroll into at least one class that they needed and
community colleges resorted to “rationing” courses (Dellner,
2012). This evidence suggests new changes are needed in the
California state system to support students at all levels of
enrollment.
In part, California’s steady decreases in higher education
funding are a consequence of a need to fund other state
services; for example, Johnson (2012) notes that from 2002 to
2012, state expenditures for higher education fell by close to
10% whereas expenditures for corrections and rehabilitation
increased by 26%. Historical trends suggest that the state’s
priorities began shifting from higher education toward
corrections since the 1970s, even though the majority of
Californians (68%) opposed spending cuts in higher education
to reduce state budget deficits and 62% supported spending cuts
in corrections to balance state budgets (Baldassare, Bonner,
Petek, & Shrestha, 2011). The trends in California suggest a
mismatch between stakeholders’ desires and current higher
education policies.
Higher Education Policy in Minnesota
Minnesota, by comparison, has two public postsecondary
systems: the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
(MnSCU) system, including four-year and two-year institutions,
and the University of Minnesota (UMN) system (Novak, 2010).
Minnesota’s two-year and four-year institutions have among the
highest published tuition and fees nationally, although grants
and scholarships reduce published tuition and fees by an
average of $4,000 for the 71% of students who receive these
forms of aid (Armstrong et al., 2014). The high tuition and high
aid policies are still somewhat problematic for low -income
students, as state and federal grants do not often cover the full
cost of attendance. Public colleges and universities across the
nation have shifted to providing more merit aid awards and less

3. need-based awards in recent decades (Burd, 2013). Many
colleges and universities have focused on recruiting “full pay”
students who may be incentivized with merit-based
scholarships, as it would be financially advantageous to offer
five $2,000 scholarships to students who can repay the
remaining balance as opposed to a single $10,000 scholarship to
one low-income student.
The high-tuition and high-aid model is a response to challenges
similarly posed to higher education institutions in California:
decreases in state support and increases in tuition costs borne
by students and families. The Minnesota model means that many
college students in Minnesota graduate with high debt and, as
outlined by St. John et al. (2013), newer models of funding in
Minnesota place greater burdens on students from low -income
families. The percentage of need-based grants in relation to
tuition has declined in similar rates across the nation.
Impact of Policies on Internal and External Stakeholders
Clearly, internal and external stakeholders are concerned with
these trends. For example, college students and their families
are immediately impacted by the short- and long-term costs of
attending higher education. Unemployment rates are
significantly lower for college graduates compared to those
without degrees, while lifetime earnings are significantly higher
for graduates (Johnson, Cuellar Mejia, Ezekiel, & Zeiger,
2013). These issues affect all citizens of the United States,
given the strong links between college students’ degree
attainment and overall economic prosperity of the nation.
It is important to consider the effects of higher education
policies on all stakeholders. Strategies to glean the insights of
undergraduates can help policy makers to discover the important
stakeholders’ priorities and concerns related to higher
education. Public Agenda (2012a) developed a policy report
advocating interviews with students as primary stakeholders in
higher education. Public Agenda (2012b) also developed a list
of questions to trigger critical thinking and collaborative
problem solving for faculty, staff, advisors, and administrators.

4. These are important stakeholders in the issue of college
completion. Public Agenda also designed an internal
stakeholder engagement workshop toolkit that offers
suggestions for soliciting opinions from stakeholders and
engaging them in the process of developing collaboration
solutions.
Finally, external stakeholders have a vested interest in higher
education outcomes as well. If states are subsidizing higher
education institutions, they wish to know how they will be
responsible for contributing to the resources required to
implement the policies, whether the policies will have their
intended impact, and whether there will be any return on
investment for the states’ economic systems. States remain
concerned about the performance of public institutions and, in
some cases, have initiated discussions about performance-based
budgeting for colleges and universities. These performance-
based budgets would tie state financial contributions to
institutional retention and graduation rates. Lahr et al. (2014)
analyzed the actual and potential unintended impacts of
performance-based budgeting and discovered that the
consequences of performance-based budgets could include grade
inflation, watered down curriculum, and reduced diversity on
campuses. In light of these policies, it can be accurately stated
that higher education institutions are increasingly held
accountable for meeting student success outcomes and are
beginning to feel the weight of public pressure to ensure
students’ success.
References
Armstrong, J., Bak, L., Djurovich, A., Edlund, M., Fergus, M.,
Grimes, T., . . . Williams-Wyche, S. (2014). Minnesota
measures 2014: Report on higher education performance.
Minnesota Office of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ohe.state.mn.us/pdf/minnesotameasures2014.pdf
Baldassare, M., Bonner, D., Petek, S., & Shrestha, J. (2011).
PPIC statewide survey: Californians and their government.
Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from

5. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_311MBS.pdf
Burd, S. (2013). Undermining Pell: How colleges compete for
wealthy students and leave the low-income behind. New
America Foundation. Retrieved from
http://education.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/polic
ydocs/Merit_Aid%20Final.pdf
Dellner, T. (2012, February 15). California community colleges
“ration” courses in response to budget cuts and overcrowding.
The CalSouthern Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.calsouthern.edu/content/blog/california-community-
colleges-consider-course-rationing-in-response-to-budget-cuts-
and-overcrowding/
Johnson, H. (2012). Defunding higher education: What are the
effects on college enrollment? Public Policy Institute of
California. Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_512HJR.pdf
Johnson, H. (2015). California’s Future: Higher Education.
Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_215HJR.pdf
Johnson, H., Cook, K., Murphy, P., & Weston, M. (2014).
Higher education in California: Institutional costs. Public
Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1119
Johnson, H., Cuellar Mejia, M., Ezekiel, D., & Zeiger, B.
(2013). Student debt and the value of a college degree. Public
Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_613HJR.pdf
Lahr, H., Pheatt, L., Dougherty, K., Jones, S., Natow, R., &
Reddy, V. (2014). Unintended impacts of performance funding
on community colleges and universities in three states. (CCRC
Working Paper No. 78). Community College Research Center,
Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/unintended-impacts-
performance-funding.html
Novak, K. (2010). Governing higher education in Minnesota:
Public postsecondary systems and agencies. Minnesota State

6. House Research Department. Retrieved from
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/ssppssa.pdf
Public Agenda. (2012a). Internal stakeholder engagement
workshop toolkit. Retrieved from
http://knowledgecenter.completionbydesign.org/sites/default/fil
es/309%20Public%20Agenda%202012.pdf
Public Agenda. (2012b). Student voices on the higher education
pathway: Preliminary insights and stakeholders engagement
considerations. WestEd. Retrieved from
http://www.publicagenda.org/files/student_voices.pdf
St. John, E. P., Daun-Barnett, N., & Moronski-Chapman, K. M.
(2013). Public policy and higher education: Reframing
strategies for preparation, access, and college success. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Lecture on Blum, Racism: What It Is And What It Isn't & on
Kelly and Roeder, Racial Cognition and the Ethics of Implicit
Bias
Blum
The subject matter of the present discussion is how we should
communicate about racism – about our moral vocabulary.
Blum starts his article by pointing out that not all racial
problems are racist problems, or that not all racial wrongs are
racist wrongs. He is suggesting that we do a disservice to
ourselves and to others if we do not keep this distinction in
mind and if we do not employ it accordingly in our
communication. It would be a “cheapening of the moral force
of the idea of 'racism'”.
In order to make this distinction between racial problems and
racism, Blum defines racism accordingly. Racism has two

7. components. One, inferiorization, and, two, antipathy. A racist
views or treats persons of another race as inferior – because of
their race. And, a racist hates or strongly dislikes persons of
another race – because of their race.
Blum points out that even though the two components are
related, and often occur together, it is also possible for one to
occur without the other. Occurrence of one without the other is
sufficient for racism to be taking place. But, since racism is
possible without one of these, neither one of the two elements is
necessary for racism to be taking place.
We can now go to Blum's examples. Blum gives us five
examples to think about.
Example one – a stereotype of black persons as intellectually
inferior. Blum's analysis and conclusion – this stereotype is
racist since it contains the first, inferiorization, element of
racism.
Example two – a stereotype of black persons as good dancers.
Blum's analysis and conclusion - this stereotype, as such, is
not racist. It is not racist – because it attributes a positive
attribute to black persons. Therefore, there is neither
inferiorization nor racism here. However, Blum's analysis
consists of two additional comments.
Comment one – the stereotype is still morally objectionable or
immoral, in that it overgeneralizes about a group and blinds us
to the internal diversity of the group. This stereotype
discourages us from treating members of the group as

8. individuals. This is a Kantian moral objection – individuals are
not recognized as choosing for themselves to be and be seen as
who they are but, rather, individuals are recognized in terms of
who the person judging them chooses for them be seen and
treated as. Even though racism also commits this Kantian moral
wrong (inferiorization and antipathy are also forms of
misrecognition of who persons choose themselves to be),
misrecognition as such is not racism – since misrecognition can
occur without basis in race. One can misrecognize persons on
the basis of gender, eye color, profession, etc. This blinding is
also morally problematic from the standpoint of the principle of
democracy – that, in order for democracy to function, we must
encounter and be challenged by persons who are different than
we are and hold views different from our own.
Blum's comment two – the stereotype is morally objectionable
in that “good dancer” used to mean intellectually inferior in
another historical context in the past. However, this does not
mean that that “good dancer” means the same in the present
context.
Example three. Ms. Verano is a fourth grade white teacher who
does not have many (if any) black friends, and does not feel
comfortable with black parents. She has racial anxiety – on the
account that she fears that her communication may be
misinterpreted by black persons as offensive without her
intending to. As a result, she is awkward, defensive and
inattentive with black persons and does not effectively
communicate with black parents in her class. As a result, black
children in her class are not as well guided as the white
children, on the basis of the teacher's feedback to the parents –
and the education of the black children suffers. I this sense, the
black children are discriminated against in Ms. Verano's class.
Blum's analysis and conclusion – Verano is guilty of a racial

9. wrong (since there is harm to the children and they are
discriminated against) but not of racism (since Verano does not
view or treat black persons as inferior or has antipathy toward
them). Verano has racial anxiety or racial discomfort – but is
not a racist. She is, of course, culpable for her racial anxiety,
and must undertake steps to eliminate it, but she is not a racist
and is not morally culpable for racism.
Example four. Teacher asks for a “black point of view” from a
Haitian-American student in her class. Here we have the same
kind of racial homogenization as in the second example, and, it
is morally wrong for the same reasons, but, again, it is not
racist if the teacher does not view or treat black persons as
inferior and does not have antipathy toward them on the basis of
their race.
Example five. A skirmish was taking a place outside of a diner
in Rhode Island, and Officer Young, a black off-duty
policeman, stepped outside of the diner with his gun in an
attempt to resolve the disorder. Two white police officers
arrived, and shot and killed Officer Young after they yelled for
him to drop his weapon and he did not. A worry arose that
white person would not have been shot in such haste – and that
Officer Young was a victim of racism. Blum's analysis and
conclusion are as follows. There are strong reasons from the
history of the two white officers that they neither view nor treat
black persons with antipathy and inferiorization, and therefore
they are not racists; since they are not racists in their
motivation. However, Blum concludes, there may still be
racism involved – in the stereotype that links black persons with
violence and by which the white officers were guided. Many
people are prey to such stereotypes without themselves being
racists.

10. The afterthought for the purposes of our class is that the source
of racist stereotypes is, to a significant degree, communication.
We mean here both mass media that relies on such stereotypes –
that we have seen discussed for us by Patterson and Wilkinson,
as well as Murphy – ands our interpersonal communication. For
example, our jokes are frequently full of such stereotypes, but
also other types of our interpersonal communication are also
filled with such stereotypes.
We will look at the topic of racism in jokes shortly.
Meanwhile, let us also acknowledge, that Blum offers to us a
possibility to reflect on racism in stereotypes due to his
definition of racism, according to which not all racially
discriminatory behavior is racist, and due to which we looked at
racism beyond the motivation of persons, and, specifically, in
stereotypes.
Kelly & Roeder
Our interest in this Kelly and Roeder article comes insofar as
we ask the following question with regard to the Blum article:
what does it mean to say that a person is not racist in his
motivation yet acts upon a racist stereotype?
Kelly and Roeder appeal to a recognized phenomenon of snap
judgments uncovered by experimental cognitive psychologists.
They are judgments that we rely on in our behavior and that we
make “quickly, … without moderating influence of
introspection and deliberation and often without conscious
intention … relatively automatic processes.” Snap judgments
associateideas together – unconsciously, and without our
control, as it were. They are revealed by the Implicit
Association Test – in which experimenters ask subjects to

11. record very fast (before they have time to think) how they
associate ideas.
These Implicit Association Tests revealed that one type of such
associations that people in our society form is the Implicit
Racial Bias. One experimenter demonstrated the existence of
what has come to be known as the Weapon Bias – a popular
snap judgment many persons have by which they associate
images of black people with images of weapons. The Weapon
Bias would explain the Officer Young incident analyzed by
Blum with a conclusion that the white police officers were not
racist yet they were prey to a racist stereotype. They possessed
the weapon bias and made a snap judgment on its basis that the
black man with a gun (Officer Young) is a lethal threat.
Like Blum, Kelly and Roeder attempted to think through
whether a person is morally culpable for the implicit racial bias,
or a stereotype, that they are prey to. Like Blum, they
concluded that the racist bias, stereotypes, and unconscious (or,
in the language of cognitive psychology, “implicit”) attitudes
are “morally wrong – and condemnable – but that the person
himself cannot be blamed for having them.”
The interesting thing about the Kelly and Roeder articl e is that
they investigate the possibility of something like the Weapon
Bias being “rational.” What do they mean by rational here?
They mean that if a person has in fact been exposed to images
and stories from which that conclusion follows, then it is
rational for that person to draw that conclusion. To this, Kelly
and Roeder comment that even though the bias may be rational
in the sense of logical inference, it is still morally reprehensible
as it homogenizes and does not respect individuals as
individuals. We have seen Blum make this same Kantian

12. criticism in his article in his example three.
For the purposes of our class, it would make sense to point out
that the data from which the carriers of Implicit Racial Bias
derive their bias, is not necessarily one of their personal
experience, or statistical in the rigorous scientific sense, but is
likely originating from the images that we are bombarded by
from mass media, and, perhaps even from the interpersonal
communication in which we participate. Both of these sources
of the Implicit Racial Bias are morally reprehensible and should
be refrained from.
Graduate Discussion Rubric
Overview
Your active participation in the discussions is essential to your
overall success this term. Discussion questions will help you
make meaningful connections
between the course content and the larger concepts of the
course. These discussions give you a chance to express your
own thoughts, ask questions, and gain
insight from your peers and instructor.
Directions
For each discussion, you must create one initial post and follow
up with at least two response posts.
For your initial post, do the following:

13. 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
Thursday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
appropriate. Use proper citation methods for your discipline
when referencing scholarly or
popular sources.
For your response posts, do the following:
post thread.
at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
Modules Two through Ten, complete your two response
posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
“I agree” or “You are wrong.” Guidance is provided for you in
the discussion prompt.
Rubric
Critical Elements Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement
Not Evident Value
Comprehension Develops an initial post with an

14. organized, clear point of view or
idea using rich and significant
detail (100%)
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea using
appropriate detail (90%)
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea but with
some gaps in organization and
detail (70%)
Does not develop an initial post
with an organized point of view
or idea (0%)
20
Timeliness N/A Submits initial post on time
(100%)
Submits initial post one day late
(70%)
Submits initial post two or more
days late (0%)
10
Engagement Provides relevant and
meaningful response posts with
clarifying explanation and detail
(100%)
Provides relevant response

15. posts with some explanation
and detail (90%)
Provides somewhat relevant
response posts with some
explanation and detail (70%)
Provides response posts that are
generic with little explanation or
detail (0%)
20
Critical Elements Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement
Not Evident Value
Critical Thinking Draws insightful conclusions
that are thoroughly defended
with evidence and examples
(100%)
Draws informed conclusions
that are justified with evidence
(90%)
Draws logical conclusions (70%) Does not draw logical
conclusions (0%)
30
Writing (Mechanics) Initial post and responses are
easily understood, clear, and
concise using proper citation

16. methods where applicable with
no errors in citations (100%)
Initial post and responses are
easily understood using proper
citation methods where
applicable with few errors in
citations (90%)
Initial post and responses are
understandable using proper
citation methods where
applicable with a number of
errors in citations (70%)
Initial post and responses are
not understandable and do not
use proper citation methods
where applicable (0%)
20
Total 100%