Perspective: How the ‘big, beautiful bill' misses the mark on faith-based higher education

Yahoo

17-06-2025

Not all value can be measured in dollars. Consider a cautionary tale shared by Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel.
While he was studying as an Oxford Rhodes Scholar in the 1970s, one of the all-women's colleges, St. Anne's, became tangled in a debate over evolving sexual mores. Resident halls for men and women had traditionally been separated, but pressure grew to relax rules and allow men to stay overnight at St. Anne's. According to Sandel, some of the older female faculty, who he refers to as 'traditionalists,' thought it was morally wrong for men and women to share a room overnight.
But times and norms were changing, making the positions held by the traditionalists seem quaint and outdated. So they decided to state their objection on economic grounds. Specifically, they argued that allowing men to stay overnight at St. Anne's would increase maintenance and utility expenses (even suggesting mattresses would need to be replaced more often). In response to the traditionalists, the reformers pushing for change proposed that male guests pay a small fee each time they stayed overnight. Ultimately, the school ruled in favor of the reformers.
There is a lesson in this story: when a moral argument is presented in economic terms, it will receive an economic answer. As Sandel puts it, 'The language of virtue had not translated very well into the language of utility.'
While the story is half a century old, Sandel's warning has several modern applications. One area of relevance is the 'big, beautiful bill' before Congress. Already passed in the House of Representatives, the bill reflects President Donald Trump's domestic agenda, including tax cuts, government rollbacks, and increased military spending. The bill also aims to address inefficiencies in higher education, reducing mandatory spending in higher education by $350 billion over 10 years by reducing Pell Grant eligibility and spending, limiting federal aid, and eliminating several loan programs.
'As debate over the details continues, one thing is clear: this proposal represents a serious effort to modernize higher education policy,' writes Beth Akers of the American Enterprise Institute. 'It's time to move past the status quo and toward a system that protects students, respects taxpayer investment, and rewards institutions that deliver real economic value.'
One of the more noteworthy elements of the bill relates to 'risk sharing' proposals for institutions of higher education. Specifically, these policies would require colleges and universities to reimburse the federal government for unpaid debt on federal student loans, effectively making schools liable for student defaults. Understandably, provisions like this are meant to retool the incentive structure to protect students and, as one commentator writes, 'restore accountability in higher education, increase efficiency, and reduce costs.'
As the budget has moved into the Senate, risk-sharing proposals have taken the form of a 'gainful employment' condition where federal aid is predicated upon a graduate earning more than a non-graduate. In other words, schools would be pushed to minimize impractical, low-ROI programs (remember former President Barack Obama's pejorative quip about art history majors?) and advance training and credentialing that offer students the best opportunity to be gainfully employed and well-compensated.
These proposals will resonate with many people. There is a reason the perceived value of higher education has declined more than any other institution over the past 15 years. Student debt is at an all-time high. College price tags continue to rise. And Silicon Valley leaders regularly voice their skepticism of college as a necessary avenue for workplace relevance.
After the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the market for post-secondary education began to favor consumers over providers — a 'buyer's market.' In other words, the supply of educational programs began to outpace waning demand for the degrees and experiences on offer. The shift in negotiating power from school to prospective student primarily relates to deliverables: What does a student get for what they pay (or borrow)? For an increasing share of the population, the perceived benefits of a university education are outweighed by the costs.
While reasons for changing perceptions vary, higher education confidence has undoubtedly been affected by an onslaught of negative PR. This includes harrowing images of student protestors commandeering their campus and vocalizing extremist antisemitic chants, stories from books like 'The Coddling of the American Mind' that describe colleges and universities that fail to cultivate intellect and instead perpetuate fragility, or a university president's public refusal to label genocidal language as hate speech.
In sum, institutions of higher education should, to use an economic expression, 'internalize the consequences' for where they have fallen short — and federal policy is an effective means to achieve this. So it is understandable why many Americans support the outcomes these policies aim toward, and financial 'skin in the game' makes sense for holding schools accountable, reducing costs and driving new efficiencies.
But there are some problems. As Sandel's cautionary story reminds us, we lose something when we reduce all value to dollars and cents.
Determining the value of a college or university experience will be directly proportionate to answering the question, 'What is the purpose of higher education?' The proposals under Senate consideration reflect the unstated but clear assumption that post-secondary education exists to foster the economic potential of tomorrow's workforce, making appraisals of higher education's worth directly proportionate to the earnings amassed by their graduates.
While career development is indeed a core aspect of university education, institutions of higher education are not monodimensional. Moreover, the raison d'etre of many schools aspire to values and goods across a variety of domains.
As a case in point, consider faith-based colleges and universities, such as those who comprise the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). An accountability framework that reduces a faith-based school's value to the future earning potential of graduates will minimize or alter its self-understanding and effectively punish those institutions for advancing a service ethos driven by their religious convictions.
As an example, my son, an education major at a prominent CCCU institution, is encouraged upon graduation to serve challenging and under-resourced school environments as an act of Christian faith. Yet under the proposed accountability criteria, his institution could be penalized for fostering that sense of service and calling.
For CCCU schools, as well as other religiously oriented and mission driven schools, there are better ways to think about value.
The late American pastor A.W. Tozer once gave an illustration of three men entering a forest: a poet, a naturalist and a lumberjack. Each views the attributes of the forest in different ways.
The poet sees metaphor. For him, the tall and mighty trees are analogous to kings superintending their province. The naturalist sees nuance. He can discern birdsong, plant life and animal activity unavailable to the untrained eye. Finally, the lumberjack sees economic value. For the market-sensitive eye, the vast expanse of lumber signals commercial potential: a chair, a musical instrument, a house.
Though Tozer had a different purpose in mind, his illustration recognizes the possibility of valuing something for a diversity of reasons. It is not that the lumberjack is wrong in his appraisal. Rather, understanding a complex arrangement with multifaceted value through an economic lens alone is a narrow way to look at things. Something is lost.
Referring to legislative proposals in the 'big, beautiful bill,' Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Republican chair of the HELP committee, wants colleges and universities to be effective and accountable. 'We need to fix our broken higher education system, so it prioritizes student success and ensures Americans have the skills to compete in a 21st century economy,' he said.
Few would disagree. Institutions of higher education should be held accountable and strive toward greater affordability and access. But risk sharing or gainful employment proposals that distill accountability to commercial conditions risk misunderstanding the multiple dimensions of value faith-based schools offer and, further, effectively punishes them for fulfilling their mission.
'An education that refines our sentiments, that teaches us to cherish the true and the good, is a gift beyond measure,' writes Peter Wehner. 'At their best, this is what Christian colleges and universities have to offer, and it's a lot.'