College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005

COLLEGE ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - March 30, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the primary academic freedom enjoyed by a university is the freedom to choose whom to admit. Most recently, this principle was reaffirmed in the 2003 decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. The Supreme Court has also recognized that, in exercising this academic freedom, universities may constitutionally consider race and ethnicity, among other factors, to promote the educational benefits of a diverse student body. At the same time, universities must regularly review their admissions policies to ensure that they consider individual admissions factors only as needed to promote their institutional mission.

The King amendment tramples academic freedom and chills universities' willingness to consider diversity factors even in the narrowly tailored manner that the Supreme Court has upheld. It creates a burdensome reporting requirement that acts as a disincentive for universities to exercise their academic freedom as permitted by the Court. Furthermore, over reliance on admissions criteria such as standardized tests, which have been found to be culturally biased, may also get caught up in the King amendment.

The King amendment also jeopardizes the privacy and confidentiality of individual student applicants. Educational institutions are prohibited by law from disclosing personally identifiable information from students' education records without consent. In fact, even release of information for educational research purposes is permitted only if the information is released in such a way that student identities are not traceable, The King amendment would, in contradiction of this law, require release of raw admissions data for applicants in a manner that would not ensure applicant confidentiality.

The King amendment incorrectly assumes that there is a weight given to each admissions factor by universities. However, as the Supreme Court explained in Gratz and Grutter, admissions factors must be considered in an individualized holistic manner and therefore weight will necessarily vary from one application to the next.

Finally, the King amendment is opposed by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association and the American Council on Education.

Mr. Chairman, Congress should not trample on the rights of universities to exercise academic freedom. Nor should we pass an amendment that would violate student privacy rights. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Republican leadership brought their higher education bill to the floor. Their claim was that it would strengthen and improve the nation's higher education system by expanding college access for low- and middle-income students. But in reality it fails to provide urgently needed assistance for millions of low- and middle-class families that are trying to figure out how to pay for their children to go to college.

This past December House Republicans voted to cut the student loan programs by $12 billion and these cuts included many significant changes to the Higher Education Act, none of which expand access to college or make college more affordable for students and their families. The bill put forward by the majority does nothing to make up for these draconian cuts.

Today Mr. Chairman, we offer our substitute in an attempt to make students whole again. Our substitute offers real financial assistance to needy families. It cuts interest rates in half for borrowers in most need by lowering the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students and their families. It lowers the cost of student loan interest rates for middle and low-income families. Specifically, we offer a 3.4 percent fixed interest rate to students who take out subsidized loans between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007.

Our Substitute also helps boost college participation rates for minority students. It establishes a graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program. It establishes a Predominantly Black Institution program that would boost college opportunities for low-income and first-generation Black college students. Our substitute also increases the tribal college minimum grant and stabilizes tribal college construction by ensuring that funds for used for construction under HEA are guaranteed.

Mr. Chairman, the cost of tuition should not stand between a qualified student and a college education. Congress should not miss an opportunity to help American families pay for college. Our bill offers families a real solution to the problem of rising tuition costs. We make good on our promise to put a college education within the reach of American students and families. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov