Absurd and superficial answer to cheapen U.S. higher education

I am certain that William Durden, President Emeritus of Dickson College and President of the International University Alliance, is a great administrator and scholar. However, his Inside Higher Education opinion offered in Reinventing Higher Education for Affordability is absurd and offers a simplistic and uninformed recommendation that U.S. higher education could adjust budgets to make university attendance more affordable by eliminating student life programs and non-academic support services. Liliana Rodriguez joined my critique in her opinion piece, "The cost of our silence," when she declared that "College costs are out of control because, as a nation, we've failed our citizens."

The first thing that Durden misses is that student affairs is unique in its origins in U.S. higher education and emerged as a speciality when faculty abdicated the role of supporting students so that faculty could focus more on their teaching and scholarship. The second point is that, once faculty abdicated, student affairs professionals emerged and built a speciality with research and theorizing that confirms student life as a significant contributor to student retention and graduation; a vast literature documents how student affairs educators contribute to enhancing student experiences but a recent example is from Loyola University of Chicago. Third, many of the auxiliary services provided by student affairs staff contribute to balancing the budgets that are gapped when tuition doesn't meet expenses for many colleges and universities. Fourth, Durden points to the Studentenwerks that provide housing and dining services independent of, and self-funded from, German universities. While Durden proposes that the Studentenwerk model could be applied in the U.S., he misses the point that the German political system is totally different from that of the U.S., offering numerous social supports that students can access any time they need them at low or no cost outside the universities. The U.S. has no such social support system. Finally, Durden suggests that elite universities in the U.S. could maintain the holistic student experience while other "lesser" institutions could adopt the new financial model. Great suggestion if your goal is to perpetuate a separate and unequal system of higher education to serve elite populations untethered from the reality of regular citizens and students.

The shortcomings of Durden's recommendation to do away with student affairs and support services is especially short-sighted in the context of the growing stress, anxiety, and loneliness that students are presently feeling. As so many institutions move to partial or complete virtual learning, the long-term impact on students' and faculty members' mental health and progress in learning is likely to be at risk. The current generation of students will likely be labeled as the "COVID-19" generation due to the disruption of their learning and long-term impact of the COVID-19 economic picture. Fortunately, some faculty are advocating that campuses adopt a more humane approach to students' experiences, dropping the inclination to blame them for the COVID-19 positive cases that have risen in university settings and providing positive ways for students to interact and socialize with each other. When it comes to attracting and retaining students from minority backgrounds, the urgency of retaining strong support systems is particularly important.

This opinion piece is an example of throwing others under the bus in the very difficulty times COVID-19 has created. This is not a time to start attacking fellow educators who are trying to make all this work. My hope is that other academics will not take Durden seriously, or that they will take him seriously and push back vigorously to insist that the holistic education that is distinctive to U.S. higher education be preserved, even in difficult times.