bloland, harland g. associations in-action: the-washington), d.c ... - eric · document resume. ed...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 261 .642 HE 018 '059

AUTHOR Bloland, Harland G.TITLE Associations in-Action: The-Washington), D.C. Higher

Education Community. ASHE-ERIC Higher EducationReport No. 2, 1985.

INSTITUTION Association for the Study of Higher Education.; ERICClearinghouse-on Higher-Education, Washington,D.C.

,

National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.ISBN-0-915917-21-7

SPONS AGENCYREPORT NO 'PUB DATE 85CONTRACT 400-820011NOTE' . 135p.AVAILABLE FROM Association for the Study of Higher. Education, One

Dupont Circle, Silite 630, Washington, DC 20036,($7.50, nonmembers; $6.00, members).

k PUB TYPE Historidal Materials (060) -- Information Analyses -ERIC Information Analysis Products (071)

EDRS'PRICE MF01/PC06 plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS . Agency Role; Change Strategies;'Classification;

Decision Making; Federal Aid; Federal Regulation;*Government School Relationship; *Higher Education;Institutional Autonomy; Lobbying; *Policy Formation;*Political Influences; *Professional Associations;*PAkilic PolicyAmerican Association of Community and Junior Colls;American Association of State Colleges and Univs;American Council,on Education;` Association ofAmerican Colleges'; Association 'of AmericanUniversities; District-of Columbia; National Assn -

Independent Colleges Universities; National Assn ofState Univ and Land Grant Coll

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT.'The development of the role of higher education'

associations based in Washington, District of, Columbia, frOm-the1960s'to the present, is traced, with attention to events, problems,and issues. Also oonsidered are:,reasonslor joining voluntaryassociations; the policy-making arena for higher education and thegeneral principles that guide federal higher educatidn,decisionmaking; three political perspectives that have oriented Washingtonrepresentatives in their thinking about the role of associations innational affairs the traditional approach, pragmatic realism,and the activist perspective); and 'the changing-role of/theassociations as they deal with the shifting national scene.Classification schemes for national associations are also explained,focusing on six big national higher edudation associations: TheAmerican Council on Education, the National. Association of StateUniversities and Land-Grant Colleges, the American Association ofState Colleges and Universities; the °American Association ofCommunity and. Junior Colleges, and the Association of American.Universities. The historical analysis covers the following periods:-steps toward a cooperating community in the 1960s; theNixon-Ford-Carter years of the 1970s; the Reagan Administration inthe 1980s; and current and future issues. (SW)

ociationsin ActiOn

l'he Washington, D.C.Higher Education_ Community

Harland G. Bloland

/111

U.3. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EOU ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organization

. originating

0 %rot changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu.ment do not necessarily represent official MEpout on or policy.

Report 2ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reportg 1985

Asi*rearer

2

a

Associations in Action:The, Washington, D.C., Higher Education Community

by Harland G.Rloland

ASHE-ERIC -Higher Education Report No. 2, 1985

Prepared by

® Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington University

Published by

ASAssociation for* the Study of Higher Education

Jonathan D. Fife,Series Editor

O

Cite as:Bloland;Harland G. Associations in Action: The Washington,D.C., Higher Education Community. ASHE-ERIC Higher Edu-cation Report No. 2. Washington, D.C.: Association for theStudy of Higher Education, 1985.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education invites individualsto submit proposals for writing monographs for the HigherEducation Report series. Proposals must include:1. A detailed manuscript proposal of not more than five pages.2. A 75-word summary to be used by several review committees

for the initial screening and rating of each proposal.3. A vita:4. A writing sample.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 85;72833ISSN 0884:0040ISBN 0.913317-21-7

Ea3 -3* Clearinglionse on Higher EdudationThe George Washington UniversityOne Dupont Circle,, Suite 630Washington, D.C. 70036

AS}- ir Association for the Study of Higher EducationOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washington, D.C. 20036

DEECl

This publication was partially prepared with funding from theNational Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Educationunder contract no. 400-82-0011. The opinions expressed in thisreport do not necessarily reflect the positions or.policies of NIEor the Department.

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .

What Are_Higher Education Associations, andWho Needs Them?In the United States, associations are organizations inwhich membership involuntary. They have been positivelyviewed as integrators of society (Rose 1955; Smelser 1963),as socially stabilizing forces (Coser 1956; Lipset 1960), andas vehiclesor the direct expression of public opinion(Commager 1947). Less. positively, they have been seen aslobbyists for special interests, undemocratic veto groups,and groups with too much power in relation to polifical.parties and eleCted publicafficials (McConnell 1966). All ofthese perspectives, except the last, have-been applied tohigher education associations. The' have never beenviewed as being as powerful in relation to public officialsas say, interest groups representing business, labor, agri-culture, or the professions.

Colleges and universities are the institutional membersof-the associations described in this monograph. They joinWashington-bated higher education associations becausethey need to have the case for higher education presentedto Congress and to the administration. They need constant,skillful monitoring of federal government-decisions, andthey need to be kept abreast of the shifting winds of policymaking. Institutions of higher education require that theirautonomy be protected froni excessivefederal regulation.They not only must have representation for the wholeenterprise of higher education, but they also join specificassociations because those associations speak for particu-lar sectors of education. The associations provide servicesto colleges and universities leadership programs, impor-tant forums,,and research results.

How Has the Higher EdticatiomCommunity in WashingtonDeveloped; an&How Has 4 Fared?The associations in Washington entered the 1960s with a"traditional perspective" regarding their political role.Their activities reflected the notions that higher educationwas a good in. itself and would therefore have society'sunquestioned support, that higher education need only ful-fill its traditional missions of teaching, research, and com-munity service as the institutions defined them to be,sup-ported, and that these missions were so important thathigher edtication'should be protected from governmental

(\,

Associations in Action

5

interference as it pursued its lofty aims (King 1975, pp.68-70).The organization of associations in Washington and the

metho . of operation that grew from this perspectivetended to ighenducation a small, rarelyinfluentialvoice in federal education policy. The Washington officesof the associations were quite small and in many casesdirected by amateurs more familiar with campus life thanwith the rough-and-tumble politics..of Washington. Theprocess of influencing and responding to legislation anddecisions of importance to higher education suffered in atleast three ways. First, the associations tried to avoid eventhe appearance of lobbying, so they were passive and diffi-dent about articulating the interests and needs of highereducation. Second, when called upon to express theirviews on pending legislation, associations referred ques-tionsto their membership's leaders, the college and univer-sity presidents. They, in turn, debated the pros and cons ofthe issue, sometimes for a considerable length of time,before replying. This-process was so cumbersome thatdecisions affecting higher education were made while asso-ciation members were still discussing matters, and highereducation had no impact on the decisicin (Babbidge andRosenzweig 1962). Third, when presidents of colleges anduniversities did discuss important issues, they invariablydid not confine themselves to stating their requirementsand recommending the best ways.to fulfill them. Instead,they took up the broad questions of public policy and inhigh-minded discussions seemed ready to advise Congresson how to solve, for example, the church/state problem(Babbidge and Rosenzweig 1962, p. 111).

The 1960s was a transition period in which the associa-tions moved from atraditional perspective to "pragmaticrealism" (King 1975); thus, while the associations wantedto retain much of the traditional perspective, the over-whelming consequence of the major higher education legis-lation of that period was that associations had'to becomemore politically active or be bypassed and superseded byother forms of representation. The long-time coordinathig,function of the American Council on .Education, for exam-ple, was reemphasized and federal relations given a moresignificant role in the association's total activities. Mecha-nisms for cooperation among associations came into being(the Secretariat, the Morse Federal Relations Group, for

example), and norms (principles by .which the.associationstried to order their relationships) emerged in the 1960s.These events indicated that the Washington higher educa-tion associations were evolving into'a true community,trying to act on the beliefs that associations should deem-phasizt disagreement, consult with each other, seek unitywherever possible, andemphasize areas of agreement.

By the early 1970s, the associations had organized afairly effective community for-making their views known inWashington, and they were often successful in presentinga united perspective to Congress when asked to presentviews on pending legislation. One such basis for unity wasthe communitywide conviction that the next positive stepin higher education programs was forthe federal govern-ment to provide support for higher education through sub-stantial direct grants to institutions in the 1972 Amend-ments to the Higher Education Act of 1965. In this stance,however, the associations and their institutionahmemberswere almost alone, as most of Congress, a major propor-tion of the interested publics, and the administrationfavored direct aid to students. When the smoke and dust ofthat legislative struggle had cleared and it was evident thatthe thrust of federal' support was to be student aid, theassociations were viewed as having been out of touch.Although this negative opinion clung to the associationsthrough much of the 1970s, it bore little relation to reality.Out of the ashes of the 1972 disaster, the associationsforged 'avevitalized community: Associations upgradedtheir federal relations activities, recruited staff with experi-ence and expertise in Washington, became, proactive ratherthan reactive in anticipating and dealing with federal deci-siotis.and legislation, vastly improved communicationamong the associations and with the federal government,and generally and specifically increased their willingnessand capacity to interact with the federal government. Ofcourse, Many other factors in addition to the events sur-rounding the 1972 Amendments galvanized the associations(the new depression in higher education, the ever-growingregulatory presence of the government). But the 1972Amendments marked a time and an event that indicated atransition from the fading traditional orientation of the1960s to the.pragmatic,realism and political activism of the1970s and 1980s.

Associations in Action v

B the end of the 1970s, the1associations had success-fully participated, in the 1976 Amendments, the MiddleIncome Assistance Act of 1978, and the 1980,Amendmentsto the Higher Education Act. In this process, they hadtemporarily resolved some deep-seated differencesbetween public and private institutions.

The election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency usheredin a new and, for a time,, bewildering political environmentfor higher educatior in Washington. Not only did the newadministration advocate dismantling the fledgling Depart-ment of'Education, but almost all domestic programs,including higher education, were scheduled for substantialcutbacks or termination. In addition, oldfriends'of highereducation were no longer in Congress; and the "liberalconsensus," which strongly supported aid to higher 'educa-tion, seemed to be disintegratirig (Finn 1980). For the asso-ciations, the 1980s have been a period of fine tuning themechanisms already in place that bring service and givevoice to higher education in-Washington. Perhaps mostimportant, the associations have-been crucial in keepingthe structure of higher education support intact in the faceof proposed Draconian cuts in federal financial support tohigher education. The associations, through their ActionCommittee for Higher Education, organized an effectivegrass roots catapaign urging parents,.studats, higher edu-cation officials, and others to protest the cuts in federalaid. The speed and skill with which the campaign was orga-.nized and implemented indicated both the effectiveness ofthe higher education community's organizational machin-ery and the new realization that the mobilization of abroader constituency would be part of the future activitiesof the community. .

As the second half of the 1980s approaches, the associa-tions in Washington can look back upon two solid areas ofachievement. TheyThave been influential in shaping andprotecting federal support for higher education, and theyhave perfected organizational and communitywide mecha-nisms for effectively serving their constituents. Of course,they have not solved all the problems, nor are they centralplayers in the Washington political arena. They are facedin the mid-1980s with an approaching crisis that threatensthe unity and effectiveness of the community. The currentstudent aid legislation, as its benefits are eroded by insuffi-

vi

cient funding and inflation, strikes the private sector asdeeply 'threatening,to the economic hdalth of independentinstitutions. At the -same time,1 forcefully,cOmmuhicatesto the public sector that it appears.to have given away too

'much in the negotiations for the 1980 Amendments. Publicinstitutions believe that equal oppirtabity for minoritiesand the poor is in danger. The private and public sectorshave already clished sharply on this issue, and it may bethat an entirely new legislative basis for federal support tohigher education needs to be constrnoted when the currentlegislation expires in 1985. .

z+,

Associations in Action vii

'0

. ADVISORY BOARD

linger BaldiVinAssistant. Professor of EducationCollege of William and Mary

'lobed-BirnbaumProfessor of Higher EducationTeachers College, Columbia University

Susan W: CameronAssistant Professor and ChairHigher/Postsecondary EducationSyracuse University

Clifton F. ConradProfessor of Higher EducationUniversity .of Arizona 1

GeorgeD. KuhAssociate Dean for Academic. AffairsSchool of EducationIndiana University

Yvonna S. LincolnAssociate Professor of Highg,,EducationThe University of Kansas

Robert A. ScottPresidentRamapo College of New Jersey

0


10

. .1

CONSULTING EDITORS

Robert AtwellPresident"American Council on Education

Robert CopeProfessor of Higher EducationUniversity of Washington,

Robert L. CraigFormer Vide President, Government AffairsAmerican Society for Training and Development, Inc.

John W. CreswellAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Educational AdministrationUniversity of Nebraska

David KaserProfessorSchool of Library and Information ScienceIndiana University

George KellerSenior Vice PresidentBarton-Gillet Company

;David W. LefitieProfessor alp ChairDepartment of Educational LeadershipThe Florida State University

- , Linda Koch LorimerAssociate General CounselYale University

Ernest A. LyntonCommonwealth Professor and Senior AssociateCenter for the Study ofPolicy and the Public InterestUniversity' of Massachusetts

Gerald W. McLaughlinInstitutional Research and Planning AnalysisVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Theodore J. MarcheseVice PresidentAmerican Association for HigherEducation

Associations in Actioh

.* Virginia B., Nordby .DirectorAffirmative Action-ProgiamsUniversity of Michigan

Harold Or lansOffice of Programs and Policy'United States Civil Rights Commission

Lois S. PetersCenter for SCience and Technology PolicyNew York University

John M. PetersonDirector, Technology Planning-

- The B. F. Goodrich Company

Marianne PhelpsAssistant Provost for Affirmative ActionThe George Washington University.

,

t.

b

Richard H. QuaySocial Science Librarian

t Miami University

Charles B. Saunders, Jr.,Vice President for Government RelationsAmerican Council on Education

John E. SteckleinProfessor of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Minnesota

Donald WilliamsProfessor of Higher EducationUniversity of Washington

.t

12 i S

CONTENTS

Foreword xv

Introduction xix

Higher Education Associations and Society 1

The Formation of Associations 5

Association Membership: Why Members Join andWhy They Stay'or Exit., 7

The 'Washington-Based Education Association.Community and Its Environment 13

Demystifying Variety and Fragmentation:Classification Schemes 13

Zeroing In on the Big Six (or Seven) 14

The Satellites 22

The Policy. Arena 24

In the Shadow of Elemenfary.and SecondaryEducation: Higher Edgcation and the FederalGovernment 28

Three Political Perspectives 33

The 1960s: Steps toward a Cooperating Community 37

The Associations' Response 38 ,The Creation of Community: Cooperative

Mechanisms and Community Norms . 39

Community Norms 41

The Close of the Decade 42

The.1970s: The Nixon-Ford-Carter Years 49

The Quest for Unity and the 1972 HigherEducation Amendments 49

Government Regulations and Student Aid 51

The Distribution of Federal Funds and InstitutionalProblems 53,

The Haves and the Hal e Nots 54

The Washington Education Associations Engagethe 1970s 56

Community Changes and Activities 62The Improving Image: The Big Six in the 1970s 67

Tax Credits and the Middle Income Student' Assistance Act of 1978 70The Department of Education 71

The Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1980 72

End of the 1970&: Internal Turmoil and SolvingProbleMs 74


The 1980s: Confronting the Reagan Administration - 79The National Elections of 1980 and Their Aftermath 79The Reagan Presidency . 80The Associations and the Reagan Budget for 1983 81

Current Issues and the Future: The WashingtonCommunity in the List Half of the Decade 83

The Present Environment 83What Lies Ahead? 88

References 91

Index 99

x;.v

14

FOREWORD

For usere at the Association for the Study of HigherEducation and-the-ERIC Clearinghouse onHigher Educa-tion, this report represents a different type of monograph.The ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report series is-dtsigned to analyzeconventional wisdom=research, liter-ature, and institutional experiences:so administrators andscholars can apply the sum total to their own situations.While including the literature survey and issue analysisthat.have become series trademarkII, this book differs fromour usual reportsn that it is partly original research andpartly literature survey. Harland Bloland contributesresearch, updating the information available on the subjectdone by Stephen Bailey (1975), Lauriston King (1975), andLawrence Gladieuxwith Thomas Wolanin (1976). -

Scioner or later, every individual and every institutionrecogniielihat effective policy on, a national-level, be it

--legislative, regulatory, or research-oriented, requires uni-fied action and coordinated effort. The national higher edu-cation community is..no exception. Over the years, variousassociations have joined other embers of the communitytoprotect their interests, advance their causes, and enable

rem tOoperatemore effectively. The associations coveredby this report are those that are located in Washington;---D.C.. Each association's national headquarters servesmany functions'for its members: stimulating communica-tion, conducting annual meetings, holding workshops, pub-lishing reports, andalerting them to federal and state legis-lation affecting higher education. The direct influencing 'ofthis legislation;or lObbying, has been considered in thepast as vulgar, distasteful, and beneath academic dignity.In reality, lobbying actually means letting the people in leg-islative decision-making positions know the needs andpositions of the higher education community. Furthermore,associations act as a counterweight to the pervasivesinflu-.ence of non-higheeeducation interest groups, which bynecessity are compethig for the same monies._

Dr. Bloland, professor of higher education at the Univer-sity of Miami, has long had an interest, both as scholarandpractitioner, in the role of associations on higher educa-tion. In practice, he is'organization advisor for the Stateand Regional Research Associations Special InterestGroup of American Educational Research Association.As a scholar, he is knowfor his writing on associations,


a 5Xy

A

particularly the Report on the Higher Education Secretar-iat Community in 1971. For Dr. Blo land, this report consti-tutes More than fifteen,years of study and observations.

hether providing institutional consensus before a Sen-at .subzomniittee hearing, defending rightg of members ina argaining session with a university, or arranging a con-fe ence to bring members together, the higher educationa sociations have long proved their worth to their thou-s nds of constituents. Yet the next few years may be per-h ps the most crucial in terms of defining'the role of thef deral government in higher education since the 1960s.

or the foreseeable future, institutional tiniding and policymaking will be intertwined with,federal and state budgetingand policies. To have any voice in thisimportant process,the higher education community must maintain and expandits contacts in the legislative process. The higher educationcommunity has earned its rightful place in the appropria-tions process, but only diligent action will ensure thathigher education continues to receive equitable attention.

Jonathan D. FifeSeries EditorProfessor and DirectorERIC Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington University

I'

\

11111111111111

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to thank the people in the-associations for the timethey have-spent with me.-Also let me thank3he chief exec-

utive officers ofthe higher education community for their

cooperation.

Associations in Actionxvii

INTRODUCTION

Although a great many associations represent postsecond,-ary education, for the past 25 years seven associationsheadquartered in Washington, have been particularlyactive and.visible in giving voice to the interests of post-secondary education as a whole and representing the mostprominent .institutional sectors.of higher education in theUnited States (public and private institutions, graduate andresearch universities, liberal arts colleges, and communitycolleges). These seven associations the AmericanCoun-cil on Education, the National Association of State Univer-sities and Land-Grant Colleges, the American Associationof State Colleges and Universities, the American Associa-tion of Community and Junior Colleges, the Association ofAnierican Uniyersities, the Association of-American Col-leges, and the National'Association of Independent Col-leges and Universitiescover the widest and most com-prehensive range of national issues that concern higher '-education. (At miy one time, the community has been com-prised of the "Big Six" associations. The Association ofAmerican Colleges represented the independent sector..until 1976, and the National Association of Independent_Colleges and Universities became chief representative-forthat sector. in 1976.)

.Based on aelief that academic i titutiona must beapart from the political arena to retain their autonomy andbecause higher education was associated with the objective,pursuit ofknowledge and not dedieated to the purSuit of its

own self-interest, higher edueation until the 1960s took theposition that it should be above Politics and policy making.

But times changed and nationgneeds required higher edu-cation to supply skilled and highly educated graduates forthe work force. It accomplished this task in part through avast array of federal grants, contracts, and aid legislation.,This-government activity "served as a magnet to draw dis-

tant association headquarters like iron filings to the field of

force of the nation's capital" (Bailey 075, p. iv).Although 4011 reluctant, higher education associations

'and their leAders were,pulled into ever more complicated'and demanding relationships with the federal government,with each other, ancvith their members. This reporttraces the development of the roleof higher educationassociations in Washington from the 1960s to the present,describing and-analyzing the ,events, problems, and issues


18

associated with them. It defines voluntary associations andindicates why members join, remain,..and/or leave; explainsthe various classification schemes that have been used tomake sense-of the bewilderingly large number and types ofnational associations, focusing on the Big Six nationalhigher education associations; describes the policy-makingarena for higher education and the general principles thatguide federal,higher education decision ma'iting and //threepolitical perspectives that have oriented Washingtdn repre-sentatives in their thinking about the role of associations innational affairs; and tracks the changing role of the associa-tions as they deal with the shifting national political scene.

Although they are enmeshed in almost every issue,important event, and educational crisis that higher educa-tion must confront, Washington higher education associa-tions at'e an understudied element of higher education. Oneconsequenceis that this monograph-, particularly for sec-tions covering the late 1970s and 1980s, relies upon sucheveryday sources as the Chronicle of Higher Education,Change Magazine, ACE's Higher Education and NationalAffairs, newspaper accounts, association annual reports,and conversations with association leaders. A well-developed, up-to-date, theoretically sophisticated researchliterature-on the late 1970s and 1980s does not exist, andit is the author's hope.that this monograph will lay thefoundation for more extensive research and study.'

1. A small number of superb studies cover the 1960s and 1970s, however;for example, Babbidgc and Rosenzweig 1962, Finn 1978, Gladieux

and Wolanin'1976, King 1975, and Pettit 1965.

XX

19

HIGHER EDUCATION-ASSOCIATIONS AND SOCIETY

Highe: education associations belong to a category of orga-nizationsscalled "voluntary associations"; they are groupsof persons organized to pursue interests common to theirmembers. Membership is neither mandatory nor assumedby birth, and the groupsare organized separatelyfroorthestate, althougliin many instances" government bureaus and ,

deparknents organize associations to fulfill an agency'sgoals (Sills 1968, p. 363).

Members of higher education associations mighfbe indi-viduals, institutions, or other associations. Individualmembers frequently are part-time,nonsalaried, voluntaryparticipants in the association's affairs, whereas in the col-leges and universities they rerresent, they are full-time,salaried staff members. Most national higher educationassociations have a central, full-time, salaried administra-tive staff. -

The voluntary association has.been viewed as aangen-tial" organization:

It is a group in continuing patterns of interaction thatJunctions as a "bridge" between persons in two or moreinstitutionalized groups or subdivisions thereof. Theword "tangent" is appropriate because it sugges'ts a setof relationshiprthat are in a sense, peripheral- to' that

. defining the central functions of the institutionalizedgroups (Truman 1955,pp. 40-41).

Thus, for example, the relationships among professors thatconstituteThe basis for organizing a learned society aretangential to the professor /student/administrator relation-ships central to the research/teaching functions of a uni-

versity.The distinction between university and association 14

actually more ambiguous, because associations, particu-larly in recent years, have engaged in Myriad teachingactivities. They sponsor workshops, institutes, and shortcourses year round, and they engage directly and oftencompetitively in seeking funds for and in conductingresearch studies. NeVertheless, the distinction is useful,

and in this report associations are viewed essentially as"tangential" to the "basic organizational units," universi-

ties and colleges.

OQ

0


20

Most general studies of voluntary associations where theemphasis is on the community voluntary associations havefocused on determining how the associations relate to thesocialand political order. They have.been viewed, forexample, as a basic means for integrating the society (Bab -chuck and Warriner'1965; Rose 1955; Smelser 1963). Somehave extolled the virtues of multiple:crosscutting, or over-lapping memberships in associations as major sources ofrestraint, stability, and- cohesion in democratic systems(Coser 1956; Lipsee 1960). Others have viewed associationsas purveyors of conservative bias in pluralist societies(McConnell 1966; Schattschneider 1960).

The most compelling broad concern regarding voluntaryassociations has been their role in building. and maintainingpoliticardemocracy.. Voluntary associations, for example,are seen as significant buffers, mediating between the over-whelming power of the state and the weakness and vulner-ability of the individual (Nall 1967, p. 279). One especiallylively controversy in this area has turned on the questionof whether or not the governing structures of associationsmust themselves be democratic for tl,e larger system tosustain democracy (Lipset, Trow, and Coleman 1962;Michels'1915).

De Tocqueville, whose name tends to come up in discus-sions of associations, saw them as the primary means forthe creation of a democratic expression of public opinion(Commager 1947, p. 279). Associations, in the literature onorganized interest groups (particularly pressure groups andlobbies), are viewed as providing far greater leverage in thepursuit of interests than would be possible through individ-ual or unorganized group action (Hrebener and Scott 1982;Moe 1980; Wilson 1981).

The literature that stresses the relationship of associa-tions to democracy is not all optimistic, however, andassociations are often viewed negatively as being undemo-cratic veto groups, as preventing the expression of legiti-mate opinion by individuals and unorganized groups, aseroding the broad representation of political parties, and asbeing too powetful in relation to elected public officials.Each of the broadest of these concerns has its counterpartin the study of higher education associations.

Studies of higher education associations demonstratethat association participants feel considerable ambiguity

2 21

about,tbe virtues of multiple and overlapping membershipsanctactivities. On the one hand, some are convinced that

each type of higher educationfinstitution sand each major

part of colleges and universities (faculty, presidents, stu-dents, trustees, and so.on) need special representationnationally; and pressure to organize Washington-basedassociations for more specific and stronger representation

ismever absent.An- equally firm belief exists; however, that multiple and

overgpping memberships are a major problem for thenational system and are likely. to result in exorbitant costsfor the institutions that support them financially. These'cost's include dues, duplication and fragmentatiOn of effort,

and the creation of ruinous competition among types and

parts of institutions of higher education, reflecting JamesMadison's views on the evils of factionalism rather than

those of the mid-twentieth century. advocates of a benign

pluralism (Coser 1956;.Lkipset 1960).The voluntary association as a buffer between the state

and the individual (institution) finds expression in higher

education.in the preoccupation ofinstitutionaleaders withthe,problems of government regulation. The associationshave played an important and aggressive role in tempering

what has been seen as unwarranted federal incursions uponinstitutional autonomy, particularly in the 1970s (bailey1978). The buffeting role is further expressed in what some

associations and professional organizations do with.regardto accreditation and in the peer system of reviewing pro-posals for federally funded research to further guaranteeau degree of autonomy that higher education associa-

tions seek.In the literature and in everyday higher education associ-

ation life, the queition is not so much whether genuinedemocratic governance structures are required for democ-

racy to survive. Instead, the focus.is on whether the asso-ciation is democratic enough internally to satisfy an indi-vidual institution's sense. that its concerns are listened to

and its interests are sufficiently and clearly represented to

the federal government and-to the public. The focus invari-ably reduces to some version ofMichels's "Iro4fLaw ofOligarchy" (1915), that is, to the issue of what to do about

the perceived inevitability that a small group of personseventually takes control over the decision-making appara-

Theassociationshave playedan importantand aggres-sive role int e m p e rin g . . .

unwarrantedfederalincursionsuponinstitutionalautonomy.

Associations in Action3

tus of the association, no matter how formally democraticand egalitarian the association. This question is a seriousone for association life, for higher education associationsare organized democratically, with strong presumptions ofequality among, members, regular elections of officials, anddecision-making power in the hands of the membership.

This question is submerged among the institutionallybased associations, perhaps because association leadersand staff members in those associations take great pains toallay members' apprehensions concerning oligarchicalinevitability. But the problem surfaces from time to time in-the charge.that some types of institutional interests arepromoted with greater zeal andmore association resourcesthan others. The grand umbrella association, the AmericanCouncil on Education, is particularly visible when suchcomplaints arise, and it expends considerable time andeffort in persuading members that such assertions aregroundless.

Among the learned societies, the "democracy versus IronLaw" controversy is pervasive, continual;and often on thesurface. For members of learned societies, it takes the formof a persistent belief that a ruling oligarChy, unfairly selectedand maintained, dominates decisionmaking in the associa-tion (Somit,and Tanenhaus 1964). It is especially difficult inlearned societies to deal with the issue of oligarchy becausethe disciplinary learned societies, in the midst of their formalegalitarian democratic organization, are in,fact comprised ofhighly productive scholarly elites whbse leading figures doindeed populate,the offices and committees of major associa=tions and dominate the journals and presentations at annualmeetings; leaving in their wake a nonpublishing, almost ndn-participating proletariat. The two claS'ses are concentrated inquite different types of colleges and universities. What givesthe notion of oligarchy its particular bite in learned societiesis the conviction that the same elite who get elected to officesand monopolize conventipn piesentations control the disci-pline as well as the association and determine, perhaps_unfairly, which kinds of research arc appropriate, whatshould be published in associationjoumals, and who shouldparticipate in the annual meetings. Here the problems ofdemocracy and the Iron Law of Oligarchy are seen as con-necting directly with the reward system of higher education,

4

23

I.

particularly With that system's legitimacy (iloland and Blo-land 1974). .

More important for this monograph is the role of associa-tions in giving voice to and in representing higher educa-tion, particularly in WashingtontD.C. But first, let us lookat how Associations are created and grow and why peoplejoin'them and stay in them or get out.

S

The Formation of Associations

Considerable:interest has been"expressed in recent years inthe life cycles of organizations (Kimberly, Miles, andAssociates 1980) and in the signifiCance of organiz'itionalenvironments for the creation; growth, maintenance, andgeneral survival of organizations.(Aldrich and Pfeffer1976). Associations are subject to the same structural andoperational limitations as any other organization, so muchof the literature on, organizational life cycles and environ,ments is of interestfor several reasons. Firsi, the environ-mental conditions at the time of the organization'4 cre.-ation so influence it character and structure that many ofthe central attributes of that organization continue to sur-vive long after the environment has chinged (Stinch-combe 1965).

Second, the creation of associations does not occur inregular, predictable patterns. "The formation of associa-tions tends to occur in waves" (Truman 1955; p, 59), andhigher education associations are no exception. At sometimes, many associations are created; at other periods, feware formed. The same statement is true of the move to thenation's capital, which poses a problem.for those highereducAtion associations already in.Washington. They seethe proliferatiqn of associations as fragmenting the highereducation community and creating conditions in which fed-eral administrators and members of Congress may hearonly a babel of voices from higher education, attenuating 0

the effectiveness of the higher education community as awhole in Washington.

What causes associations to be formed? Those interestedin the formation of interest groups emphasize three societalprocesses: complexity (proliferation), disturbance (Hrebe-ner and Scott 1982,-p. 110), and entrepreneurship (Kim-

.

Associations in Action 5

berly 1980; McClelland 1965; Salisbury 1969; Schumpeter1934, 1947).

First, as societies grow and become technically andsocially more complex and specialized, associations arecreated to represent those specialized interests. The morespecialized hnd differentiated the interests, the greater theincrease in associations to represent those interests.

Since the late 1800s, American higher education hasgrown and diversified in spurts and jumps related to wars,depressions, prosperity, changes in public policy, andother societal changes. The uneven growth patterns havebeen accompanied by uneven proliferation of associations,with the increasing complexity and specialization of thehigher education system producing an environment partic-ularly conducive to the formation of new higher educationassociations. Higher education interests divide along suchdimensions as academic level (graduate schools, two- andfour-year collegeS), academic emphasis (liberal arts col-leges, professionhl schools, vocational and technical insti-tutions), religions and nonreligious differences (Catholic,Protestant, and secular institutions), and sources of sup-port and control (public versus private, local, state, or fed-eral support). And, it seems, each type of higher educationinstitution hasan organized association to serve its special-!zed needs.

In addition, size and speCialization have increased withinhigher education institutions, both in administration andamong the faculty, encouraging the establishment of appro-priate professional associations and learned societies toarticulate the shared concerns of each institutional group.

Second, the disturbance theory assumes that the variousparts of society naturally seek a state of stable relationswith the environment as a whole and with other relevantassociations. Changes in the society, however, rangingfrom innovations in.technology to business cycles tochanges in the federal law, produce environments in whichsome groups become newly disadvantaged and othersadvantaged. The advantaged may seek to consolidate theirnew positions and the disadvantaged to return to their for-mer statuses through the organization of formalized inter-est groups that seek to mobilize resources and becomeinfluential (Hrebener and Scott 1982, p. II,.

Third, entrepreneurial theory explains the formation ofassociationskas the result of the drive:arid ambition of oneor a few persons to construct a viable association: Theentrepreneur is a "person who exploits . . . an untried pos-sibility by launching a new enterprise" (Wilson 1973). Theentrepreneur takes, risks and is willing tbendure uncer-tainty arid to postpone immediate gratification for successin achieving long-term goals. Such a person-has a solidsense of purpose and a long-term perspective. The entre-preneur's tasks are to discover or construct a distinctiveplace in.the sun and to identify for the organization a rec-ognized jurisdiction (Wilson 1973, p. 204). The entrepre-neur must recognize the appropriate 'environmental`niche" in which the association can fit snugly, that is, toorganize for the association that "set of combinations ofnecessary resources to sustain a specific organizationalpopulation' (Brittan and Freeman 1980, pp. 318-19).

In-this formation of associations and establishment of orga-

nizational niches, an entrepreneur is-immeasurably aided if

he or she has the support of motivated and interested cadres,that is, of small groups of people who are willing to work

,hard.to set up the organization and to run it.

Association Membership: Why Members Join andWhy They Stay or ExitFor the institutional representatives to the national associa-tions, salient questions arise concerning membership. Whyjoin any particular national higher education association?Why remain a member? These questions are particularlyimportant in periods like the present, when institutionsmust be extremely conscious of the costs and benefits to bederived from membership. Are the benefits of membershipsufficient to justify the cost of dues? Are the benefits ofmultiple memberships complementary orrepetitious? Doesthe membership payment account for a substantial, visibleitem in an institution's operaticn budget?

Two theoretical perspectives have dominated systematicinquiry into why prospective members join associationsand why members remain in them: the pluralistic moue!

and the collective action model (Olson 1971).

The plu?tilists claim that people join groups in order tosupport group goals, while Olson counters that people


`2.6

join in response to private (selective) benefits that aretypically nonpolitical (Moe 1981, p. 531).

The pluralistic perspective (probably that of most presi-dents of universities and colleges) asserts that institutions

. join and stay in associations that reflect their institutionalinterests; institutional members assume that the role of theassociation's leadership is to produce and sustain a set ofcohesive goalsthat the appropriate institutions can and willsupport. Rationally, if the association does not reflect theinterests of the institutioni-thdt college or university willdrop out of the-Asociation.

Olson, howe#&, asserts that rational prospective mem-bers would not join an association merely on tht basis ofsharing an association's goals (Olson 1971). He argues thatmost association-goals are in the forrn.of "collectivegoods," which means that they involvi:a "good" that, ifobtained, world benefit everyone in the relevant-class ofpersons or institutions involved and not just those who aremembers of the association. Therefore, he argues, power-ful reasons explain why potential members would ration-ally choose not to participate in the collective'action ofjoining and participating in an association. Two in particu-lar are strong arguments against pluralism.

First, the most significant obstacle to collective action isperhaps the "free rider" problem, which seems to beinherently involved in receiving collective benefits. Eathparticipant knows that if the collective good is supplied,any particular. person (or institution) will receive the bene-fit as well as those who are members of the association.Thus, why cooperate with the others? In'fact, why join theassociation in the first place?

Second, if the membership is large enough; it becomesapparent to each participant that an' individual contributionto collective action will have no perceivable consequencein obtaining the collective 'good. Although this generaliza-tion has exceptions (for example, large members may-getso much benefit-from a collective good that they find itworthwhile to contribute, even independently, and, if the,groups are small enough, every member can see that his orher individual'contribution will make a difference), theseprinciples logically so discourage rational collective actionbased upon the glue of group interest that prospective

8

:27

members will (or should) join associations only if they areoffered somethingnore than shared political organiza-tional goals (Olson 1971). Rationally, the incentives forjoining and staying in associations must be a result of theassociations' ability to offer the members "selective bene-fits," that is,."tangible private benefits (e.g., newsletters,attractive insurance rates, travel discounts, etc.), which

can be given to association'members and withheld fromthose who are not" (Moe 1981, p. 534). Thus, those mem-,bers who join associations to get selective binefits may,and often do, continue to stayin the associations even ifthey do not support the organization's goalsso long asthe selective benefits continue to attract them.

Although Olson's critique of, he; pluralist txplaialon ofwhy people or institutions join and stay in associations ispersuasive, his argument is flawed as well. Basically, itsrestrictive assumptions, that prospective members arealways driven by-rational economic self-interest And have

at their command complete information, do not conforni towhat we now know about how people operate in everydaylife. The concept of "perception of efficacy" has beenoffered as.an alternate explanation. Individuals mayjoingroups if they subjectively calculate that their participationmakes a difference in achieving the group's goals or politi-cal outcomes, even if it appears from others' perspectivesthat no such conclusiOns are warranted or justified by the'objective situation (Moe 1981, p. 536).

This explanation means that leadership must provide amixture of political and nonpolitical inducements to themembers to maintain the organization. It also means that inactuality people join and stay in organizations because ofthe association's provision of .selective benefits 'for mem-

bers and because of the association's abfi'lty to make avail-able collective benefitiforxlembers and others as well.

This emphasis on the role orleadership in an associationunites the importance of the entreprerieur_in the formation of

associations with the significance of the entrepreneur in

attracting and keepinginembers. This leadership foie is illu=

minated by a conceptualization of interest groups called

"exchange theory" (Salisbury 1969). this.theoretical postureconceives of association leaders as akin to business entrepreneurs,people who initiate activity Or form organizations and

Offer "products" (incentives/benefits) to "customers"

Thisexplanationmeans thatleadershipmust providea mixture ofpolitical andnonpoliticalinducementsto themembers tomaintain theorganization.


:28

10

(potential and current members) fo: a "price" (joining andstaying hi the association) (Salisbury 190, p. 1).

Three basic types of incentives figure into the calculus ofprospective and actual members: material, purposive, andsolidary (Wilson 1973, chap. 3).

Material incentives.

Material incentives correspond to Olson's nonpoliticalselective benefits that induce individuals to join and stay inorganizationsnewsletters, insurance, advice, and infor-mation, for example. But material incentives can also referto the tangible, political benefits that accrue,to members asa result of the association's successful attempts to achievelegislativechange and favorable federal, judicial, and,'administrative decisions.

Although higher education associations rely on all threetypes of incentives, material benefits are predominant, visi-ble, and important. Higher education associations provide,newsletters, training programs, conferences, Journals, andinformation. They organize and pursue activities intendedto influence members of Congress and the executive and .judicial branches of the federal government.

The. conflicts that arise internally in a utilitarian associa-tion (one that relies upon material incentives primarily)relate to the distribution of the material benefits. Duringthe late 1960s, for example, some association members in -

the American Council on Education complained that theydid not share adequately with the Big Six in Washington in,the distribution of executive and legislative informationgathered by the Council (Bloland and Wilson 1971).

Purposive incentivesIf an association relies primarily on its stated goals or pur-poses to attract and keep members, it is using burpo-siveincentives. Purposive benefits do not aid the individualassociation members directly, but they aid the associationcollectNely (Hrebener and Scott 1982, p. 19). Some'of thestated goals of higher education associations seem to indi-cate that these organizations do rely on stated goals toappeal to members. The stated goal for the AmericanCouncil on Education, for example, is "to advance educa-

29

tion and educational methods through comprehensive Vol-untary and cooperative action'''(ACE 1969, p. 1).

Purposive incentives. are often somewhat vague, as isadvancing education, through cooperation, causing someproblems for the organization. The stated goals have to beones that separate the association from other groups but donot create conflict among the members (Wilson 1973). Pur-posive incentives are important to higher education associ- '

ations, but they are not as significant in the actual oper-ation of associations as material incentives.

SOlideiry incentivesSolidari incentives are also intangible;They refer to suchbenefits as the warmth, congeniality, and enjoyment thatmay result from participation in the association (collectiveincentives) and the specific rewards of election and/orappointment to offi'ce and honors (both selective incentives). Higher education associations provide such incen-tives, and they may be important for the membership.

Organizationsmay change over time, from - primarilyusing one type of incentive to emphasiking anothe;Formany years the Association of Airierican Universities wasa fairly small organization whoseinstitutional representa-

lives, the presidents of prestigious universities, knew eachother quite well. Meetings of the AAU were reportedlyconvivial affairs in which presidents, who ordinarily haveno one on the home campus to whom they can bare theirsouls, let their hair down and talked freely, about theirproblems to their understanding fellow presidents. Inrecent years, however, because presidents stay in office forshorter periods of time the turnover in AAU membershipreduced the possibilities for the old, strong solidary incen-tives. The singular pressure to which the 50 most presti-gious research universities were prone changed the associ-ation from a major user of solidary incentives to an organi-zation emphasizing the provision of material benefits for itsmembers, as evidenced most directly by the leaders' deci-sion to becOme actively engaged in federal relations.

Thus, higher education associations, much like otherorganizations, rely on leadership to provide a variety ofincentives to attract and retain members. These incentivecan be characterized as selective and collective, political


and nonpolitical, tangible and intangible. In fact, the role ofleadership in associations has been illuminated by seeingthe relationship between leaders, and members of associa-tions in terms of the Washington higher education associa-.tion world.

12

31

THE WASHINGTON-BASED EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONCOMMUNITY AND ITS-ENVIRONMENT

The higher education association worldis comprised of awide variety ofnational, state, and local organizations. Atthe national level, higher education associations withoffices at One Dupont-Circle in Washington, D.C., number -4

approximately 60. The precise number is difficult to statebecause associations' jurisdictions overlap and becausehigher education has numerous definitions. As a result ofthe sheer number of associations and the number of inter-ests they represent, the Washington higher education-com-munity appears endlessly fragmented and anarchic. "Prob-ably no other segment of American Society has so manyorganikations and is yet so unorganized as higher educa-tion" (Babbidge.and Rosenzweig 1962,-p. 92).

Demystifying Variety and Fragmentation: ,

Classification Schemes-.Those who write about the presence of higher education-associations in Washington are pressed to make sense outof "the bewildering variety of education interests in theWashington area" (Dailey 1975, p. 6) by dividing the asso-ciations and placing them in meaningful' categories-Noneof the classification schemes are satisfactory, however,because the system itself is not tidy: Interests; purposes,memberS, and activities Overlap, combine, and divide inWays. that defy neat, orderly categorization.

NeVeOrless, classification- schemes are necessary as "abasis for discussing associations and the national system inWashington. AssOciations can be grouped by their primaryinterests and purposes: (1) institutionally tied associations(for example, the Association of American Universities),which seek to advance educational institutionsas a wholeor parts of them the Council' of Graduate Schools, fdrexample); (2) learned societies (the American SociologicalAssociation) and research associations (the American Edu-cational Research Association), Which seek,to advanceknowledge in the disciplines in a general area; (3) facultyorganizations (the American Association of University Pro-fessors), which attempt to enhance.the autonomy arid theoccupational state of academic faculties; (4) special taskassociations (accreditation associations), which areorga-nized to perform specific functions for higher education,such as accreditation; an' d (5) student organizations (theNational Student Association) (Bloland 1969a).

dissociations in thion 32 13

FIGURE 1WASHINGTON-BASED EDUCATION

ASSOCIATIONS:TYPOLOGY AND EXAMPLES

Umbrella organizationsAmerican Council on EducationCommittee forFull Funding of Education Programs

Institutional associationsAmerican Association of Community. and Junior

CollegesAssociation of Independent Colleges and Schools

Teachers unionsNational Education Association of the United StatesAmerican Feeration of TeachersAmerican Association of University Professors

Professions, fieldS,,and disciplinesMusic EOcators National ConferenceAmerican Political Science AssociationAssociation of American Medical Colleges

Librarians, suppliers, and technologistsAmerican Libtary AssociationNational Audio-Visual Association, Inc.College Entrance Ekamination Board

Perhaps, the broadest, most inclusive classification planis the taxonomy that includes not only higher educationassociations but also elementary and secondary associa-tions and noneducational groups that affect the Washingtoneducational scene ;see figure 1). The overall context of thisscheme is educational representation in Washington(Bailey 1975).

Zeroing In on the Big Six (or Seven)More specifically related to this monograph is the classifi-cation scheme of Lauriston King,(1975), later refined byMichael Murray (1976), which emphasizes an associationgrouping called "the major associations" (called the "corelobbies" by Murray) and informally referred to as The "Big

14

I

ti

FIGURE 1 (continued)-

Religion, race, sexNational Catholic Educational AssociatidnWashington Research,Project Action CouncilsAmerican Association of University Women

"Liblab" (liberal, labor) lobbiesAFL/CIONationaVarmers Union

Institutions and institutional systemsPennsylvania State UniversityNew York State Education Department

Administrators and boardsAmerican Association of School Administrators

'National School Boards AssociationAssOciation of Governing Boards of Universities and

CollegesCouncil of Chief State School Officers

, MiscellaneousCouncil for Basic EducationNational Committee for Citizens in EducationNational,Student Lobby .*

Source: Bailey 1975, P. 9.

Six." This, core group of higher education associationsconsists of an umbrella association,'the American Councilon Education (AgE), and five institution-based associa-tions --the National Association of State Universities andLand-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), the American Associa-

-'tion of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU),..theAssociation of American Colleges (AAC) (until 1976), theAssociation of American Universities (AAU), and theAmerican Association of Coinmunity and Junior Colleges(AACJC). The, central focus of this paper is upon thesesore associations and on the National Association of Inde-pendent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), which substi-tuted for AAC in 1976. All of these associations are housedin the National Center for Higher Education et One

r

Asiociations in Action

34 .

15

Dupont Circle, except AAC and NAICU, which are nearDupont.Circle and Capitol Hill, respectively..

These six or seven associations are of most interestbecause they "take part most regularly and on the widestrange of political concerns of all the Washington-basedhigher education associations" (King 1975; p. 19).

The American Council on EducationOf the six core members of the Washington *her educationcommunity, the largest and most broadly representative isACE. Its membership in 1983 included national and regionalassociations, organizations, and institutions of liighep educa-tion and affiliated institutions and organizations.

The Council was founded in 1918 by 14 national educa-tion associations as the Emergency Council on Education,a "peak" organization for those constituent associations.The CoUncil's purpose was to assist in coordinating associ-ations. After the war, the name was.changed to the Ameri-can Council on Education and its areas of interest andactivity broadened.*

AfierWorld War I, it became apparent that ACE as anassociation of independent associations had no real controlover those associations: It found itself handicapped in thecoordination of associations. As a result and because itsfinancial resources were meager, the Council began toorganize itself to relate more directly to colleges and uni-versities and to reduce its dependency upon its members.Although this move created conflict with some of theCouncil's members, ACE successfully underwent a majorreorganization through a series of constitutional changes.In 1962, the Council added direct, dues-paying institutionalmembers, forbadeany decision-making assembly withinthe Council comprised of constituent members, and cre -'aced a governingboard comprised almost entirely of presi-dents-representing.their own institutions rather than repre-sentatives of constituent associations..

The Council also shifted its role from that of a coordina-tor of association activity and defined its role as a coordi-nating agency in the higher education system as d whole.This shift could be accomplished through its compreheri-sive membership of associations, institutions, and other

*ACE, brochure.

16 35

organizations; through its attempts to coordinate the for:mation of policy on the national issues and Problems ofhigher education; and through the large, number of knowl-edgeable people it could recruit, primarily from the institu-tions of higher education, to participate on the Council'sboard, commissions, and committees. The Council hasrepeatedly been asked how it can be called an "umbrella"organization with coordinating functions, when it is sooften viewed as an. institutionally based association com-peting with other institutionally based associations. Thoseassociations called for representation on the ACE board inthe 1960s. At that time, ACE's president, Logan Wilson,indicated that because, many ACE board members werealso members of the associations, those associations werealready represented on the board. AAC and NASULGC,however, did not always find that answer satisfactory.

The coordinating role has been a difficult one to clarify,and the Council, usually through its president, has oftenattempted to define it.' Coordination is a key word in theWashington higher education community, and it must beclarified because,its meaning changes in Washington.Because the associations are autonomous, they need toidentify and represent their specialized constituencies, butat the same time they need to act together on some issuesAO-activities.

The Council was-caught in the problems of the 1950s thatall the associations experienced, which made the activityof coordination difficult. The practice was to ask constitu-ents how they felt about, for example, what Congress wasdoing. The membership took a long time to answer, andsometime& they were'asked only during the associations'annual conferences. The result was that higher educationoften had no position on significant topics (Babbidge andRosenzweig 1962).

The National Association of State Universities andLand-Grant CollegesThe National Association of State Universities ana Land-Grant Colleges has a membership of 144 colleges,,utiiversi-

",,

2. The president of ACE is its chief administrative officer, chosen by theboard after consultation with the membership. The chief elected official isthe chair of the board.

Coordigationis a key wordin theWashingtonhighereducationcommunity.


36

ties, and ,state higher eduCation systems. NASULGC is theoldest institutionally,basedjtigher education association inthe United States with its roots-in the,Association of Amer-ican Agricultural Colleges (established in 1887) and theNational Association of State Universities (1895). These'two associations, with the State Universities Association,(founded in 1918), combined membership tt, produceNASULGC, which assumed its present form in 1963.Almost one-third of all higher education students in'theUnited States are enrolled in NASULGC colleges and uni-versities, and almost two-thirds of doctoral degreesawarded are awarded by state and land-grant institutions.*

NASULGC's primary mission has been to support high-quality and low-cost public higher education'. It has astrong orientation toward promoting graduate study andresearch and a long - standing commitment to the use ofinstitutional grantsfrom the federal government.,.NASULGC has the reputation as an effective associationin Washington. It derives its perceived strength primarilyfrom the prestige and political skills of many of the presi-dents of the state universities and land-grant colleges andits long history of the land-grant schools' political experi:ence at the state level. NASULGC has had a full-timeWashington office since 1947, which has been staffed by asuccession of able executive directors.

Although various vice presidents, deans, and other admin-istrators participate in the governance of the association,NASULGC is a presidentially based association. Legisla-tion and policy making are in the hands of the association'sSenate and Senate Executive Committee. The structureof NASULGC consists of a variety of councils, commis-sions, divisions, and offices that reflect the association'sconcerns in governmental relations, relations amongmembers, international programs, agricultural, urban, andmarine affairs, research and graduate study, and the prob-lems and concerns of historically black colleges (includingthe 17 land-grant institutions in this category in the asso-ciation).

*AASCU 1984, brochure.

18

The Association of American CollegesThe Association of American Colleges was founded in 1915by a group of independent, church-related institutions.Although formally committed to the.promotion of highereducation in general, it vas for a long time the major voiceof the independent sector of higher educatioti, with seven-eighths of its membership of more than 800 colleges anduniversities privately controlled institutions. It came to bethe leading voice for liberal arts education for four-yearcolleges, both public and private. In the mid-1970s., itexpanded its membership to include other institutions (forexample, community colleges with strong commitments toundergraddate liberal education).

The association wastharacterized for many years as anorganization opposed to federal aid and federal regulationin any form. In the 1960s, it held positions similar to othernational higher education associations on most issues, butit began sernirating itself from the public institutions overthe question of tax credits. AAC schoolS saw tax credits asa nongovernmentally controlled means for increasingtuition levels, a way that would provide support for institu-tions without raising the issue of church versus state. Thepublic institutions and their associations, particularlyNASUI,GC and AASCU, totally opposA tax credits forpersdnal expenditures on education.

In the 1970s, the deteriorating financial position of thesmall, independent colleges created major problems forAAC in its posture toward externatrelations. This situationled to a series.of internal changes designed to reconcile theneeds of independent colleges in terms of financial anffed-eral relations with the thrusts of liberal education. It cutmi-nated in a series of crises that resulted in the formation of anew organization within the association and ultimately tothe organization of a separate association to represent pri-vat& higher education, leaving AAC to dedicate itself to thepromotion of liberal education.

A

The American AsSociation of State Colleges and UniversitiesThe membership of AASCU is comprised ofmore than 350state colleges, and universities. Many of these institutionsare former teacher training institutions. Others started asmunicipal universities and community colleges or as agri-

Associotions in Action 19 .

38

icultural and technical schools. Some members are recentlyestablished comprehensive institutions.* Twenty percentof the 12 million students enrolled in higher education inthe United States attend colleges and universities that.belong to AASCU; the institutions represented by AASCUaward alm9st one-third of the undergraduate degrees in theUnited States.

AASCU was founded in 1961 and established a Washing-ton office in 1962. Its president, Allan Oscar, is the dean ofthe chief eiacutive officers of Washington higher edu-cation associations, having been head of the AASCU'offices in Washington since its inception.

AASCU has maintained close ties with the land-grantand community college associations and has workedclosely with ACE. It is noted for providing a wide range ofservices for its vnembers. In addition to its representativefunction in Waihington, AASCU analyzeslederal and stateprograms and :s involved in international educationthrough its pmmotion of internationalization of curriculaand its encouragement of opportunities for exchange pro-grams for scholars and technical assistance. The ssocia-tioneonduch, workshops and seminars and publis es mate-rials on a range of topics, such as de elop-ment, future planning, program evaleati n, and p rtner-ships with lo:al governments. AASCU seeks to c nnectits member iastitulions with business, la or, and ublic Iaffairs. Like NASIYIT; the organizati n supports poli-cies that enc ourage lo tuition and is coMmiVed o equalopportunity in higher education. It joins a nuinbe of otherhigher education associations-in Washington in s ongly

anadvocating iacreases for student assistce-progr ms, butAASCU fines itself at odds with associations representingthe independent sector in its opposition to several provi-sions of the ?ell grants. AASCU, for example, supports theelimination of the provision in the Pell grants that limits theamount of a student's award to 50 percent of the cost of hiseducation.t AASCU supported the commuter allowance ofthe Pell gran. program and also supports federal aid topart-time students, science education bills, and federal aidto science and technology in general.

AASCU 1984, brochure.tNASULGC 1584, brochure.

20

33

American Association of dommunity and Junior CollegesThe American Association of Community and Junior Col-leges was established in 1920 as an association of juniorcolleges. It now represents the interests of 1,219 commu-nity; technical, and junior colleges. The mission of theAACJC stresses advocacy of community colleges' interestsin Washington and elsewhere and service in the form ofwidely diverse programs for its members. The organizationis a product of the historically ambiguous place of the two-year college in higher education in the United States. Thecommunity and junior college movement has needed toestablish a readily perceived identity and to make thatidentity known to its constituents. In ,Washington, it hastaken the form of strong, aggressive advocacy for commu-nity colliges.to Congress and the federal agencies. AACJCis also known for its willingness and ability to realisticallymodify its positions on issues, however. -.

AACJC has also been active in relating to governors,state legislators, and business arid labor leaders. The asso-ciation allies itself quitenaturally with AASCU andNASULGC in representing the public sector of higher edu-cation and advocating low tuition. Ninety percent of thestudents attending its member schools are enrolled in pub-lic institutions. It departs from NASULGC in having littleinterest in graduate education and support for research. Infact, the way in which dwindling federal dollars are dividedamong research support, graduate education, and under-4graduate student aid is a potential source of conflict i thepublic sector.

Ever since AACJC moved to Washington, it has Main-tained a large.organizational presence (though quite smallin comparison to labor unions and business associations)and since 1970 has had an office staff of about 60 people,making it second only to the American Council on Educa-tionin the size of its office and the range Of its activities.

AACJC has its own particular areas of concern that haveset it apart from some of the other associations. At onetime, these special interests, combined with strong growthand support from the grass roots (every congressional dis-trict, it was said, has at least one community college in it),led the association to contemplate going its own way as athird education sector, somewhere between elementaryand secondary education and higher education. In recent

Associations in Action40

21

years, however, this idea has diminished. Still, the associa-tion's interest in vocational education, education in the s

semiprofessions, technical training, adult education, andcommunity service makes it a special advocate in higher

/ education.

Association of American UniversitiesiThe Agsociation of American Universities is a relativelytsmall association whose members consist primarily of thetmost prestigious private and public institutions in the. ,United States and Canada. Its interests focus on support ofgraduate education and large-scale research and the associ-ated issues. For most of its history, it acted as the quintes-sential "president's club." Presidents met twice a year inprivate sessions with no printed proceedings as they dis-cussed the common concerns of unive,- y presidents. Asawassociation it was not active, even a ,er irorganized asmall office in Washington in 1962. Part of its reticence inWashington is believed to have been a result of the high'level of direct access to Washington decision makers thatthe individual presidents had. In addition, its leadersbelieved that if they spoke infrequently, when they didspeak their testimony would be more effective ()Noland1969a). According to an.AAU Spokesman:

There is a tendency in AAU to believe you can exhaustyourself by testifying too much. If you speak out,toomuch, you are not listened to. . . . AAU prefers not toexhaust its leverage by speaking out on too many issues(King 1975, R. 90).

The SatellitesThe second group of associations has been named "thespecial interest associations" (King 1975, p. 29) and the"satellite lobbies" (Murray 1976, p. 83). Whire vahole insti-tutions are members of the major associations, the, satelliteassociations represent specialized groups that are parts ofwhole institutions and smaller, more specialized,collegesand universities. They become involved in policy issuesthat specifically affect them but for the most part let themajor associations take the lead and represent their inter-ests. These satellite associations are subdivided into twogroups, based upon the associations they orbit.

22

41.

fa

One cluster, identified in 1970, is comprised of associa-tions with 'major interests in research and in graduate and,professional programs (for example, the Council of Gradu-ate Schools in the U.S., the AssociatiOn of American Med-ical Colleges, and the Association of American LawSchools). Their interests link them to members of.NASULGC and,AAU that are deeply involved in the sameactivities. Because many associations in this satellite grouphate strong connections with specialized professionalclientele, they are likely to relate more closely with theappropriate professional associations (the American Medi-cal Association and the American Bar Association, forexample) than with the appropriate core associations (King1975, P. 29). Initially, these satellit associations did not asa rule become involved inthe issues hat engaged theattention of whole institutions;*qt in r cent years, some ofthe satellites have been more involved in ainstream'con-.owns because of the great increase in feder legislationthat affects them all, particularly federal regu foryprac-trees and activities.- Another group of satellite associations has close inks to

the Association of American Colleges. These organ' tionsrepresent special kinds of institutions, particularly coil eswith religious affiliations and colleges of marginal statusand financial. condition (King 1975, p. 29): They include thecollege and university departments of the Nkional Catho-lic,'Educational Asiiiciation, the Council of'Protestant Col-leges-and Universities (since dissolved), and the Councilfor the Advancement of Private Independent Four-Year .

Institthions (p. 30).Since King and Murray classified associations in 1975

and 1976, however, the position of AAC and its relation-ship to other associations has changed considerably, withnew associations emerging.from their traditional constitu-encies. NAICU has emerged as the center of a group of -associations from the independent sector that link directlyto NAICU through a secretariat.

Beyond the satellite associations is a pattern of institu-tional representation involving state systems (for example,thq State University of New York), single institutions (forexample, Ohio State University, which has an office inWashington), predominantly black colleges (College Ser-vice Bureau), and regional consortia (Associated Colleges


4223

of the Midwest) (King 1975, p01,30-32). Murray calls thisgroup the "peripheral lobbies" (1 97,6, p. 84) and extendsthis group to include the learned societies (the AmericanPolitical Science Association, fbr exani1314 occupational,groups with specialize4constituencies (the National Asso-ciation of Admissions Utters), and special taikgroups(the Brookings Institution), which-sometimes line up withthe core and'satellite grdups. In addition, some privatentrepreneurs, for a profit; will guide clients to fundingsources and advise them on grant proposals (King 1972).

Although a number of the relationships among\associa-tions and between associations and the federal governmenthave changed and new associations have been created thatparticipate in the Washington higher education corrimunity,the classification of associations into three general catego-ries is still- elevant: (1) a core group heavily involved inpolitical concerns of interest to higher education associaetions; (2) a satellite group of associations that rely greatlyon. the major associations to represent.their interests butparticipate when their specialized interests are at issue;and,(3) a peripheral groupwhose members exist primarilyto provide services to their constituents and stay awayfrom politics.

The Policy ArenaThe higher education associations are but one part of alarger higher education policy arena in Washihgton. A pol-icy arena is comprised of "political actors [who] usually. . perceive their policy-making activities and interests interms of a cluster of issues that are Substantially related toeach other" (Gladieux, and Wolatiin 1976, p. 251). Thehigher education policy arena is distinguished from otherarenas because it pays "attention to issues and federal pro-grams that aim at fostering and expanding opportunities inhigher education" (p. 251). Thus, it focuses on three typesof programs and issues:

. . . first, student aiddministered by the Office Of Edu-cation for undergraduate and graduate students; sec-ond, institution building programs such as college hous-ing and higher education facilities; and third, categori-cal programs to improi;e the quality of instruction in

24

43"

general. or fpr selected higher educatio clientele, such'as librarians (Glidieux and Wolanin 1976, p. 251).

Student aid is the most important, and substan ive legisla-tion is involved the National Defense Educati n Act of1958, the Higher Education Facilities Act,of.196 the .

Higher Education Act of 1965, and the Edue:ation mend-ments of 1972.

Another part of the policy arena includes the long term,fairly stable relationships among the appropriate congres-sional committees and staffs, departments, bureaus, a en-cies, interest; groupsparticularly the Washington high r.education Associationsand clienteles. This network ofrelationships has been termed a "subgovernment" (G1a-1dieux and Wolanin 1976,'3.252), which consisted a decadeago of the higher education units (especially the Office ofEducation) intheDepartment of Health, Education, andWelfare, the Postsecondary Education Subcommittee ofthe House of Representatives, a subcommittee on educa-tion of the Senate, and the Washington higher educationrepresentatives (p. 252).

The 1960s witnessed a series of events that made the pol-icy arena possible. First, the Office of Education, whichhad been a sleepy, rather passive organizationfor most ofits existence, grew rapidly in response to its responsibilityfor administering the federal education programs of the late1950s and 1960s. The'executive branch distinguished .

higher education by creating an "assistance for higher edu-cation" category in the budget in 1963 (Gladieux andWolanin 1976). In 1957, a Special Coinmittee on Educationwas created; it eventually became the Subcommittee onPostsecondary Education. Proposals for higher educationbegart to be considered separately from other proposals foreducation. A survey of federal government higher educa-tion activities was undertaken in the House, and an ad hoccommittee to investigate higher education was,appoirtedby Representative Adam-Clayton Powell, then the head ofthe Education and Labor Committee. The Senate did nothange its organization to distinguish higher education con-

s from those of other education groups, but Senatororne Pell became a significant actor in higher educa-

icy.

The 1960switnessed aseries ofevents thatmade thepolicy arenapossible.

Associations in ction 25

44

Higher education associations had been in existence longbefore the 1960s; NASULGC, for example, was created in1887 in its initial form. Only four Of the Big Six had officesin Washington by 1950, however, and the six core associa-tions as a group did not operate in Washington until 1962.In addition, in 1962, the executive secretaries of_the BigSix and five other associations formed the WashingtonHigher Education Secretariat, a group comprised of theexecutive secretaries of the eleven associationsThe Sec-retariat held monthly meetings to discuss issues and ideas,particularly in the area of federal education policy. Mucho'f the structure was in place when most of the principalassociations moved to Onepupont Circle, which-becamethe National Center for Higher Education in 1968.

This policy aren1,-as a coherent system, emerged in the1960s, and its instritutfonalization was more or less corn-plete by the 1970s. Although many of the individual actorshave changed the basic legislation has been extended,modified, and added to, and new issues and concerns havebroadened the scope of what Washington associationsmust pay attention to, this policy arena is still basicallyintact in the 1980s. Many of the actors are part of what hasbeen called the "liberal consensus" in higher education(Finn 1980). Despite the crisis that-is-alleged to have,cracked this consensus and the efforts of President Reaganand some top administration official's to cut back and elimi-nate higher education programs and the Education Depart-ment, that liberal consensus still seems dominant in Con-gres5 (particularly in the House of Representatiires), in theWashington higher education associations, and perhaps inthe Education Department itself (although personnelchanges there may eventually turn it into a citadel of con-servatism).

The Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Amendmentsof 1972, with subsequent modifications, are still the legisla-tive anchors of the policy arena (student aid remains thecentral consideration), even though they have now beenjoined by a considerable number of essentially regulatorylaws. To understand the contexts,within whichhigher edu-cation decisions are made at the federal level, one can referto some good, somewhat similar frameworks (Gladieux andW,olanin 1976; Schuster 1982).

26 -

0

T

The primacy of the statesMuch of the reason for the reluctance of higher educationassociations to become aggressively engaged at thenational level has been the almost universal assumptionthat She division of powers between the federal governmentand the states put the federal government in a secondary,supporting role in relation to the states (for both higher andlower education). This assumption has affected not onlyhow other institutions would allow associations to partici-pate at the federal level but also the thinking of the highereducation associations and the institutions' leadership.Federal expenditures as recentlyas 1979-80 were about16.5 percent of revenues of independent colleges anduniversities and somewhat over it percent for public insti-tutions of higher education,(Schuster 1982, p. 584). TheConstitution, except for the First dnd Fourteenth Amend-ments, does not bar the federal government from partici-pating in higher education to a much greater or lesserdegree than it now does. Ithas discretion. The federal lim-its on participation in higher education are really politicalAnd pragmatic. "The federal role in education is defined bythe will of the polity" (p. 584).

Instrumental view of higher education

Scholarship, research, and creativity for their own sakeleave never enjoyed great favor with the American publicand with federal policy makers. Higher educationinstead has historically had the support of the generalpublic as well as the federal government because it is"useful" (Gladieux and Wolanin 1976, p. 4).

Nowhere'in the period from World War Ito 1968 didhigher education appearnore useful than in the service ofnational defense. When the federal government wanted theservices of scientists from universities, for example, fed-eral agencies contacted faculty members directly instead ofgoing through the institutions. Institutions, wanting to pro-tect themselve?and their autonomy, thus began to attemptto influence the federal agencies through their nationalassociations in.Washington.


The assumptions held in government and by the publicof the instrumental role that higher education should playare seen in the use of federal money in the universitiesfrom the 1940s thrOugh the 1960s and beyond to increaseequal educational opportunity. The associations couldapprove and go along with these decisionsor be left out.Eventually, despite their fears that federal decision makingwas an invasion of the universities' decision-making pow-

; ers, they cooperated with federal policy.

Public /private nondiscriminationOver the years, while Congress and Various administra-tions have attempted with some success to avoid favoringprivate higher education or public higher education, theprinciple that has guided federal activities in higher educa-tion has been to treat both sectors evenhandedly. It is cur-rently very difficult, to formulate legislation that does notviolate the principle of evenhandedness.

Fragmentation of federal higher education policyGenerally, it is assumed that the federal government does-not have a policy on higher education; in fact, however,federal departments, agencies, and bureaus have missions,and they have provided resources to higher education tohelp them further their own missions. Thus, associationshave not dealt with a single powerful ministry of educationbut with myriad federal agencies that have some interest inand capacity to make decisions concerning education. Thissituation has been both detrimental and beneficial to theassociations.

In the Shadow of Elementary and Secondary Education:Higher Education and the Federal GovernmentMass education has.been a priority in the United States, soelementary and secondary education has been more impor-tantlarger, more controversial, and with more resources.Among other things, for a long time elementary and sec-ondary education. associations were more aggressive, morevisible, and more listened to nationally than were highereducation associations. Although the system of higher edu-cation has always been decentralized in the United States(Bloland 1969a), the trend for 200 years was toward cen-tralization (Schuster 1982, p. 584). Only since the Reagan

28

4 7

administration has any calculated effort been made by anational administration to decentralize higher education.Even so, a great deal of unealculated dispersion of decisionmaking has been occurring nationally for some time(Schuster 1982, p. 583).

Long before the.associations were organized and cameto Washington since the beginning of the republic, inTactthe federal government has been involved in highereducation: Although that involvement grew in fits andstarts, it was not extensive until the 1960s. For purposes ofthis discussion, the first most visible and notable federalaction was the Morrill Act of 1862. This act was particu-larly significant, for it set precedents for the federal gov-ernmenthigher education relationship that endured atleast until the 1960s. Both the federal government's instru-mental view of higher education and the principle of nodiscrimination between private and public institutions. wereevident in the Morrill Act. The act provided support for theteaching and study of agriculture and mechanics, two use-ful subjects in which the federal government saw a nationalshortage, and institutions benefiting from the act did nothave to be public. It also originated the grant-in-aid pro-cess. The Morrill Act stimulated the organization of theAssociation of American Agricultural Colleges and Experi-mental Stations, which eventually, along with other associ-ations, became the National Association of State Universi-ties and Land-Grant*Colleges in 1963.

A second event that influenced the creation of a nationalorganization was the passage of the National Defense Actin 1916, which created the Reserve Officers Training Corpsthat Put military training on college and university cam-

__ puses. It provided part of the stimulus for organizing theAmerican Council on Education in 1918 (King 1975,p. 3).

Despite the close connections between the actions of thefederal government and the organization of two higher edu-cation associations that have bedomactive in the federalgovernmenthigher education arena,,those associationsand their members tended more to accommodate than toinfluence the federal government, at least until the late '1950s. The federal government paid almost no attention towhat institutions of higher education and their associationswanted until World War II. At that time, the relationshipbetween ACE and the federal government changed dramat-


4829

ically; the Council became involved in and shaped a greatMany federal activities, including the highly significant G.I.Bill of 1944 (Tuttle 1970). Despite this activity, however,the postwar period was clearly under the influence of theelementary and secondary education sector. The majoreducation issues that the federal government dealt withfocused on lower education, primatily desegregation andaid to private schools: ;-

The National Defense Education Act of 1958Although the National Defense Education Act of 1958(NDEA) followed the long-standing 'federal governmentpolicy of using-higher education to serve national needs fortrained Men and women (its instrumental view of highereducation)in this ,case national securitythis law is alsoviewed as a significant breakthrough in reorienting thefed-pral role in higher education. It included a student loanprogram and graduate fellowships. The actual provisions ofthe act were not so important, however, as its embodimentof a "psychological breakthrough,"

It asserted more forcefully than at any time in nearly acentury a national interest in the quality ofeducationthat the states, communities, and private institutionsprovide (Sundquist 1968, p. 179).

The major impetus for passage of NDEA was the launch-ing of Sputnik in 1958, and the major actors in its initiationand passage were in the administration, particularly ElliotRichardson of the Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, and Senator Lister Hill. The associations had lit-tle to do with it.

Search for an effective federal policyHigher education associations in the decade before NDEAhad exhibited a low profile, were not well organized, andwere too fragmented to present a coherent approach to the°federal governmenthigher education r6lationship. Theydid not initiate ideas about higher education legislation forthe administration and Congress, and they were divided onthe question of federal aid itself. The American Council onEducation and other associations had been effective inturning the President's Committee on Education Beyond

30

49

, the High School from its anti-federal-aid_stance to,a pro-federal-aid stance-by providing enrollment projections andcost analyses and comparing them with income projectionsto-show themeed for a new source of financial supportforcolleges and universities namely, the federal government(Sundquist 1968, p...195).,But the associations did not sus-tain the effort- to build support among their members and tobring influence to bear qn government officials to obtainaid from the federal government. The associations had notbeen organized as lobbies to begin with, and many associa-tion members were opposed, to federal aid to institutions ofhigher education (Babbidge and Rosenzweig 1962).

Two ways of dealing witIrthe federal government andnational issues were particularly troublesome for the asso-ciations up to the 1960s, and they detracted considerablyfrom the associations: effectiveness. The first was a ten-

, dency on the part of thassociations And their presidentsto take a high policy mition on broad social/political ques-tions when they did not need to to promote their ownneeds. In 1960, for example, the presidents of institutionsthrough the associations wanted sto,gain support forfederalaid to their institutions. When higher education spokesmen

. . . debated the possibility of aid to higher education,they'were not content to describe their needs and themost effective manner of meeting them; instead theytook on the larger issue, whether it would constitutesound public policy to meet these needs. They did notargue over their needs and interests; they argued over abroad question of public policy, in this instance, thechurch-state is'sue (Babbidge and Rosenzweig 1962,p. 101).

This method of operating was likely to be more true ofcollege presidents than those who represented them inWashington.

In many cases . . . college presidents (and it is almostalways the presidents who are involved in these *titers)have leaned over backwards to tackle an issue of hublicpolicy [that! they could and, from the political stand-point, probably should have avoided-. their vol-untary pronouncements immensely complicated their

Associations in Action 31-

legislative efforts. . . . There is a genuine conflictbetween the role . . . they seek for themselves as educa-tional statesmen and their role as political operators lob-bying on k 'half of higher education (Rosenzweig 1965,pp. 60-61).

The second way of interacting with the federal govern-ment that seemed to reduce the effectiveness of the Wash-ington associations was the practice of Washington repre-sentatives' consulting their presidents to define where theassociations stood on policy questions. This inability totake independent action.meant that the-Washington repre-sentatives were unable to tell congressional leaders wherehigher education stood in legislative matters. Thus,congressional leaders began to strongly request the highereducation community to organize education in Washingtonso it could act with some unity and give Congress somesense of what it wanted (King 1975, p. 74).

' The associations find a cooperative modeSenator Joseph-S: Clark proposed a bill that would havethe federal government provide loans for the constructionof academic buildings (loan programs for equipment andclassrooms already existed). The associations were repre-sented at congressional hearings on the bill.but again weredivided,. Private institutions Were generally in favor of theloans :but public institutions wanted grants and opposedloans (Sundquist 1968, p. 197). The bill easily passed theSenate and the House, but it was added to a larger housingbill that failed to pass the House of Representatives. It wassignificant that such a bill could find enbugh.support inboth houses to pass, even though the associations gave itlittle support.

By 1960, Senator Clark was displaying public displeasurewith the higher education associations. At a meeting oforganizational, representatives, he proposed that a lobbyingorganization be formed of all those who were committed tofederal aid and that such an association could put togethera grant proposal and work for its acceptance (Sundquist1968, p. 200). The associations showed little responsetohis suggestions, so in a speech in 1960 at a conference of ..the American Assembly attended by many of the higher

32

51

education national leaders, Senator Clark gave the associa-tions a dressing; doWn.

I wonder wheth r existing organizations in the field ofhigher educ4tioni are set up to do the job of working outa proper plan foilr federal aid and then lobbying vigor-ously for it (Studquist 1968, p. 200).

The association this time responded quickly and puttogether a grant bfll in less than a month, which Senator

TheWashingtonrepresentativesfrequentlyhave"contradictory,

Clark then introduced in the Senate at the end of June 1960. diverse andIn the fall of 1960, the American Council on Education

brought the ot4r major associations together to work on aplan for a federally financed construction program for col-leges and universities. The association representativesagreed on a coTribination grant and loan program in whichthe federal goyernment would supply $1 billion of an esti-

, mated $2 billion worth of construction needs (Sundquist1968, p. 202)4

Three PolitiCal PerspectivesThe Washington representatives frequently have "contra-dictory, diverse, and ambivalent" ideas about the appro-priate relationship between higher education and the fed-eral government (King 1975, p. 66). Those attitudes refeuthe representative campus constituencies and how otherssee the relationship between higher education and the fed-eral government. According to King, three overlappingthemes characterize -these political perspectives among theinstitutional associations. The traditional orientation pro-poses a small political role for higher education. The sec-ond/approach, pragmatic realism, retains traditionalassumptidns about the diminished role of higher educationbut admits to the necessity for higher education to partici-pate, however reluctantly, in political activity on behalf ofits constituents, often through building coalitions, seekingconsensus, and presenting a united front. The third orienta-tion, rarely encountered in action, is the "activist perspec-tive," which means considerably more assertiveness innational politics (King 1975, p. 65).

The following discussion draws upon King for hisdescription of the assumptions of these three, themes andplaces the activist perspective in the context of the period

ambivalent"'ideas abouttheappropriaterelationshipbetweenhighereducation andthe federalgovernment.


52

33

from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, a decade since thepublication of gjng's book. The following discussion isthus an interpretation of King's concepts andthe events;and relations of the period from the 1950s to the mid-1980s.,

The traditional approachKing's traditionalperspectiv , when applied to the Big Six(plus One), includes some yong'assumptions that haveundergirded education's relationships, not just to govern-ment but to politics in general. First, higher education hasinherent valuelto society and should automatically attractsupport from all the major sectors of society, includinggovernment (King 1975, p. 65). Second, higher education isa special enterprise that adds immeasurably. to the intellec-tual and cultural stock of the nation just by fulfilling itsmissions of teaching, research', and community serviceingeneral, its pursuit of truth and knowledge.

These assumptions have had some important political con-sequences. First, to guarantee the integrity of its mission,higher education should be insulated from governmental andsocietal controls as much as possible, and it should be out-side and above the political arena. When higher educationmust enter politics,. it should do so not for its own narrowself-interests but to address broad questions of national pol-icy rationally and objectively. Thus, in the early 1960s, forexample, in discussions of federal aid to education, univer-sity officials tended to approach thesubject not in terms oftheir own interests or even their own needs, but to presentconflicting opinions on the broad issue of church/state rela-tions. Associations varied in their attachment to the tradi-tional perspective; the AAC still opposed federal aid as lateas 1963, for,example, when almost all the other associationshad accepted it as legitimate.

A second political consequence of the traditional orienta-tion was that associations paid much attention and defer-ence to small groups with distinctly minority views. Thesmall Protestant colleges in the AAC, for example, werevocal and uncompromising in their opposition to federalaid to higher education institutions as late as the early1960s, and they said so publicly, in the midst of attemptsto pass a higher education facilities act in 1962 (King1975,1). 66). ,

34

(

theA third political consequence was that e traditionalperspective helped prevent higher education associationsfrom entering coalitions with interest groups outside highereducation, such as the unions, business associations,' agri-Cultural groups, and medical associations.

Pragmatic realismThe orientation of pragmatic realism was forged in the1960s and 1970s :It was a result of attempts by Washingtonleaders to retain the traditional perspective while dealingwith.the-realities of the federal government's producingfinancial and program legislation that greatly increased thegovernment's role in higher education. Pragmatic realismwas an attempt to face the situation realistically but not tochange it drastically. The political consequence of thisattempt to' merge the traditional view with new realitieswas to perpetuate the avoidance of aggressive politicalaction and to place much more emphasis upon building acoalition (King 1975).

The quinteSsential example of pragmatic realism was theassociations' ambivalent posture in relation to the Emer-gency Committee for Full Funding of Education Programsin 1969. This committee was.conprised of almost 80 educa-tion groups, and although it was dominated by the elemenrtary and secondary education associations, it did includehigher education. It attempted to unite education at all lev-els near the end of the Johnson presidency and during thefirst year of the Nixon era. The'response of the higher edu-cation community varied from enthusiastic participation tohesitancy, wariness, and outright opposition.

The activist perspectiveThis orientation continues the assumption that higher edu-cation is indeed a special area of policy and needs tubeaccorded special attention and that rational decision mak-ing should predominate in the broad questions of natior-'interest in higher education. The activists believe, how-ever, that government and society view the special quality

.of higher education as less important to the national well-being than it once was and that higher education is in corn-

. petition with other worthy interests. As a result, highereducation must compete for support and thus engage

Associations in Action 35a

Q

directly in political activism. The basic orientation thatmakes this perspectiye different from the other two is'theshift from strictly rational p,olicyperspectives and thenotion of participating in broad political discussions to thenotion of an interest-oriented position that views the for-mation of policy as'the result of the interaction of organiza-tions seekingtO express their interests. King's formulationis a reiteration of hard-nosed pluralist politics, though it issoftened by his idea that this kind of politics would "redi-rect national priorities away from the hardware concerns ofspace exploration and military stakes policy to the humaneconcerns of health, education, and environmental policies"(King 1975, p. 79). .

King's version of activism is supported more by smallassociations and state'officials than by the larger associa-tions. It envisioned separation of active political lobbyingin the form of a single lobbying association from the com-munity of independent associations, each with its own pro-grammatic thrusts. Its most appealing feature was itsemphasis upon the higher education associations' engagingdirectly in therough and,tumble,world of competitive inter-est group politics. Its shortcoming is that it did not take theform of a higher education lobbying organization thatwould reconcile differences and speak for all of higher edu-,cation: Thus, a more flexible, loosely coupled systememerged from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.

Traditional perspectives and pragmatic realism accu-rately reflect the orientation of association officials in the1950s and 1960s, even into the early 1970s. The followingsections scrutinize these periods and their influence in theactivities of the associations as they grappled with theproblem of making their associations and communityvoices heard in Washington.

36

Kti

THE 1960s: STEPS TOWARD A COOPERATING. COMMUNITY

.,Higher education and the associations changed greatly inthe 1960s. For most of the decade, student enrollments,salaries for faculty and administrators, contract research,and capital investment expanded. Public institutions grewmuch faster than the private schools, and community col-leges mushroomed.

Several of the major controversies of the previousdecade were muted in the 1960s. The issue of federal aid toprivate institutions, although never as significant in highereducation as in elementary and secondary education, fadedas private schools were included in a number of federalprograms benefiting higher educationresearch funding,construction loans, and NDEA (Advisory Commission1981, p: 12). Fears about federal control were attenuatedwhen large amounts of money from the federal governmentbecame available to higher education institutions throughthe implementation of major legislation affecting highereducation. The issue of segregation became less intense as.the federal government attempted to provide equal educa-tional opportunity,to'all who wished it. _

Two major higher education laws were enacted duringthe1960s: the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 andthe Higher Education Act of 1965. Together, they repre-sent a'shift from the position that higher education isinstrumental in national defense to an emphasis upon,achieving equal educational opportunity. These two lawsand the 1972 Amendments were-also viewed at promot-

, .ng equality at the expense of quality in 1f3her educa-tion (Moynihan 1975), an issue that returned forcefully inthe 1980s.

The Higher Education Facilities Act provided grants andloans for classrooms and other constructed facilities andallowed private and public institutions to participate (Gla-dieux and Wolanin 1976, p. 11), President John F. Ken-nedy had attempted in 1961 and 1962 to passducationbills that included loans for construction and for under-graduate scholarships. The 1961 bill included aid to ele-mentary and secondary schools (as well as-aid to highereducation) and was killed because such aid was extremelycontroversial at that time. The 1962 bill was introducedseparately from the legislation for elementary and second-ary schools and almost passed. It went through bothhouses but was rejected at the last moment as the election


56

neared and party identifications and the religious issuebecame important (Gladieux and Wolanin 1976, p. 10).

In 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and animportant civil rights act were passed. Lyndon B. Johnson

as elected decisively and brought large Democratic,m orities to both houses. These events prepared the wayfor e Higher Education Act of 1965, which directlysough to carry out the growing government policy of pro-moting ocial opportunity and equal opportunity throughfederal la (Advisory Commission.1981, p. 23). Its majorthrust was rogram of scholarships for undergraduates,that is, th'e e' cational opportunity grants that were to beawarded to the nancially needy. In addition to studentaid, the bill conta ed other categorical programs dealingwith grants to colle e libraries, the Teacher Corps, Aid toDeveloping Institutio s, and more money for the 1963 con-struction programs.

In the 1960s, the initia iopn and formulation of educa-tional policy was centered the White House. Higher edu-cation associations in contra , particularly during theJohnson years, had access to t e federal policy process pri-marily through Congress and the ureaucracy. Thus; thehigher education associations, alth ugh supportive of John-son, felt somewhat excluded from th policy makersaround the president.

The Associations' ResponseDuring the 1960s, major associations found cause thatincreasingly united theminstitutional aid. T e AmericanCouncil on Education's 1969 statement, "Fede 1 Pro-grams for Higher Education: Needed Next Steps,"reflected this position for the community. In part, treport read, "The prinCipal unfinished business of th \fed-eral government in the field of higher education is thenecessity to provide support for general institutional pur-poses" (Gladieux and Wolanin 1976, 41). N

Although they were united on the subject, some associa-tions were not as committed as others. Many of AAC'smembers still had misgivings, but this hesitancy was not asstrong as in the early part of the 1960s and before. Associa-tions could not agree about what form institutional aidshould take and later how it was to be done and at what

38

57

rate with benefits for whom. Two major perspectivesemerged amongthe most important actors in the politicalarena. In supporting higher education, the federal govern-ment would emphasize institutional aid or direct financialhelp- to-students.-Both forms of support were already in ,place, but a major debate concernedwhat the mix of insti-tutional and student aid should be and which basic direc-lion ft funding should reflect (Gladieux and Wolanin1976, p. 42). The associations' united front-for institutionalaid illustrated the more active role that higher educationassociations were beginning to play in Washington.

The Creation-of Community: Cooperative '\Mechanisms and Community NormsThe relationship between higher education and the federajgovernment broadened in scope, speeded up, and becamemore intense in the 1960s. Washington representatives suc-ceeded campus-based presidents and other college officials,as the most active, knowledgeable participants-in higheredudation on the political scene in Washington. Presidentsand campus officials were not left out of the decision- andpolicy-making processes, however. Rather, events weremoving so fast and education-related legislation and policymaking were becoming so complicated that only full-time,Washington-based representatives could keep fully abreastof the changing situation.

With a group of the major, institutionally based associa-tion offices concentrated in Washington near Dupont Circleand federal relations coming to the forefront, chief execu-tive officers and federal relations officers increased theirinformal interaction, and several new structures greatlyenhanced communication among association officials. Mostof these structures were informal social mechanisms; theywere not legal entitle's, had no official authority, and hadno ,decision-making power except through consensus (Blo-land I969a, p. 154).

The oldest of these informal groups, the GovernmentalRelations Luncheon Group (often referredto as the Tues-day Luncheon Club) met every other week for years at theBrookings Institution. Its members discussed federal andassociation activities. It began as a small, intimate lun-cheon during the Korean War, grew to about 25 members

4.1krelationshipbetweenhighereducation andthe federalgovernmentbroadened. . . andbecame moreintense in the1960s.


58

in the mid-1960s, and continued to grow until it became solarge and unwieldy that it. was viewed as no longer usefulto the members of the Big Six.

The luncheon club in, its salad days was attended by the,chief executive officers of the associations and frequentlyby U.S. Office ofEducation officials. The luncheon wasthe occasion for the exchange of information and discus-sion of controversial issues, and it sometimes served as theinstrument for determining the associations' sentiment on asubject and arriving at informal consensus.

After the American Council on Education was reorga-nized in 1962, a group of 12-association.executive directorsbegan-to-me-et monthly with ACE's new president, LoganWilson. This group, the Secretariat, included representa-tives from the Big Six plus representatives from other asso-ciationsthe Council of Protestant Colleges, the NationalCommission on Accreditation, and the AmeriCan Associa-tion of University Professors. The participants discussedany topic.of concern to them, but much of their conversa-tion concerned federal legislation and how the associationsshould relate to it. The participants informed each other oftheierespective organizations' activities, shared interpreta-tions of federal policy, and sought consensus on a varietyof topics. When-they reached consensus on occasion,responsibility for contacting appropriate legislators or gov-ernment officials was given to the various associations.When the chief executive officers could not attend thosemeetings, no substitute association representative tooktheir place.

The Secretariat was a most important and influentialinformal mechanism for coordination during the 1960s andearly 1970s. It was viewed, as an exclusive, powerful groupwhose membership included the most important organiza-tions, the associations that could mobilize Cooperativeendeavors among the associations, find consensus on pol-icy issue's, and speak for higher education on those issues.

Other groups met periodically. ACE's Commission onFederal Relations, directed by John Morse*(the MorseGroup), consisted primarily of university presidents andchancellors who assembled several times a year to forinu-late policies for ACE. Morning sessions were open andbecame an occasion for association representatives, amongothers, to dicuss issues that concerned the commission.

- 40

59

Afternoons were devoted to closed executive sessionswhere the commission's policies were determined. Also,for a time, the Associate Commissioner for Higher Educa-tion met with association officers about once a month tobrief the associations on the Office of Education's activi-ties and to become informed of higher education'sresponses to federal programs.

Community NormsIn the context of coalitions for decision making, a contextinvolving the kind of independentorganizatioris comprising

\ the Washington association community; general norms pre-yail for the community as a Whole. These norms generallyare not written and are not formally binding, but mostassociation participants tend to follow them most of thetime (Warren 1967).

For the association community in Washington in the1960s, the representatives' Primary commitment was to themembership of their individual associations, whichretained final authority over policy. But certain normsinfluenced behavior among executive officersinformalrules to which they paid attention that were not Inconsis-tent with their responsibilities to their members.

The associfitions seemed to agree tacitly that legislationbenefiting other associations should not be activelyopposed by any other particular association. Thus,although the NASULGC groups had strongly disapproyedof legislation to provide undergraduate scholarships for along time, NASULGC did not publicly, actively oppOsesuch, legislation when much of the rest of the communityfavored it (Babbidge and Rosenzweig 1962). .

In another,paie, when the AAJC Office of GovernmentalAffairs, publicly objected tO a bill that AASCU andNASULGC supported, several executive officers of associ-ations in the community expressed disapproval directly tothe American Association of Junior Colleges. No powerfulsanctions were applied and expressions of disapprovalwere the limit of punishment, for violating the communitynorm, but the norm did exist and it was for the most parthonored.

In their need and desire to coordinate activities and ori-entations and to present a unified approach to federal rela-tions, the associations also disapproved of any particular

,Associations-in_41 ction, 41

sector's attempt to be too active and too independent inobtaining special consideration for its members. Again, the'president of ACE strongly reprimanded the AAJC at a Sec-,retariat meeting becauseit was thought to have,inappro-priately urged Congress to pass legislation giving specialbenefits to the community-and junior colleges.

Another expectation among the members of the Secre-tariat was that before taking major action, members wouldconsult with the other members, even when,their interestsdid not coincide. In fact, bases for serious disagreementalways occurred, but the members exhibited genuine deter-mination to follow the norms and inform each other.

These norms reaffirmed '0,e community's belief thathigher education would benefit most from real attempts todiscover and sustain unity in its relations with thefederalgovernment. In general, the associations attempted todeemphasize areas of disagreement, to consult with eachother, to seek unity, and to emphasize those areas wherethey agreed.

The Close of the DecadeThe 1960s marked the transition from the traditiorial pei-spectives of earlier years to the organization of a commu-nity of associations that acted as a coalition on manyissues. This transition to pragmatic realism involved adetermined effort on the part of the associations to reachconsensus on as many issues as possible, and they weresuccessful many times.

The difference is illustrated by the remarks of twoUnited States Senators, one at the beginning of the decade,the other after the passage of the 1965 Higher EducationAct. During hearings on aid to higher education in the196,0s, Senator Clark stated:

I am somewhat disappointed. . . that despite the factthat.the President's Committee on Education Beyond theHigh School made its report over three years ago, thereis still no unanimity among agencies representing ourhigher education institutions as to what kind of help theywant from the federal government. They all know theywant help, but they can't agree on what form it shouldtake. I hope that conflict will shortly be resolved (cited inBloland 1969a, p. 131).

42

61

\By-1%6, on the other hand, in hearings on the highereducation amendments in the Senate, Senator Wayne

\\ Morse commented: .L.....,

, (1,,If one were to ask me to name the one major reason why(we have been ableirr:recerit years to have a break-tip-ough in education legislationwith the result thatsince the first year of the Kennedy adminiStration wehaVe passed more federal aid to education legislationquatitativelyand qualitatively than has been passed in

, thepreceding 100 years . . . 1 would tell you that it isbecause at long last the educational segment of ourcountry moved forward as a united body in support of allthe various Pieces of ethication legislation (cited in Blo-land 1969a,,pp. 131-32).

As the 1960s drew to a close, two eventsparticipation inthe Emergency Committee for the Full Funding of Educationand the Sullivan reportindicated strongly that federalrela-tions during the next years would become even more signifi-cant. These events were definite signs that the associationsneeded to find better, stronger, more workable ways to coor-dinate their activities, to represent theirinembers, and toinfluence legislationand federal policy decisions.

The Emergency Committee for the Full Funding of EducationThe ethergency committee was organized in 1969, not longafter Richard Nixon unveiled his first budget. Although itwas not promising for higher education even before thenhigher education had felt the negative effect of budget cutsfrom the last years of the JohnsOn administration and itspreoccupation with Vietnam. The,impetus behind the com-mittee was that if all the education ,ectors were organizedpolitically and made a united effort to back and increase'funds for education, that effort would have a good chanceof succeeding. By the summer of 1969, the coalition con-sisted of about 80 education groups representing all lev-elshigher education, elementary and secondary educa-tion, and vocational education. They successfully per-suaded the House of Representatives to add $1 billion tothe appropriation for the Office of Education. PresidentNixon vetoed the $19.7 billion appropriation or theDepartment of Labor and the Department of Health, Edu-


cation, and Welfare because, he said, the budget was infla,tionary. At that point, the emergency committee went intoaction and, with professional lobbyists from the NationalEducation Association and the AFL-CIO, mobilized edu-cational leaders from across the country. Nearly 900 edu-cators were involved in meetings with their representativesand with administration officials to try to override the pres-ident's veto. They came close but were unsuccessful. by 12votes.

Although the higher education associations were hesitantabout a full-fledged commitment to the emergency commit-tee and did not have as much to gain or lose from partici-pating in it as some of the other sectors of education did,ACE sent a letter to several colleges and universities ask-ing for money to support the committee, and that letterwas signed by executives from six other associations. Asmall number of association officials and state office repre-sentatives did participate on the steering committee of theemergency committee. But many association executiveswere, skeptical about participating or having higher educa-tion too closely allied with it. Some were put, off by theaggressive style of the lobbying effort. Some felt thathigher education was in danger of losing its long-sought-after identification with the national interest as it partici-pated in lobbying for a speciainterest.

An ACE official expressed the feelings of many highereducation association members:

I did have misgivings about crawling into bed with (sofmany other interests like the labor unions and the impactaid people. . . . It's becoming increasingly difficult thesedays to convince Congress about the value of highereducation to the nation and society through logical dis-cussion (cited in King 1975, p. 70).

That the, association community participated at all in theemergency committee indicated that various ways ofincreasing the role of associations in monitoring and influ-encing federal policy were going to continue.

The Sullivan reportThe Association of American Colleges, as an associationcomprised primarily of small, private, church-related insti-

44

63

tutions, had until the 1950s directly and adamantly opposedfederal aid to higher education. In the 1950s, however, theassociation.began to include in its membership a number ofstate teachers colleges that were being transformed intoliberal arts institutions. Those institutions were not at allreluctant to receive federal aid, and by the late 1960s, overthe resistance of a small group of Protestant colleges andindependent colleges, the association began to favor fed-eral aid to colleges and universities.

Dtiting the 1960s, AAC's leadership came to be firmlyidentified with ACE's,published views on educational legis-lation. Because of the association's long history of repre-senting private colleges and universities, its influx of publicinstitutions, and its subSequent attempts to,represent bothgroups by emphasizing its role as the representative ofpublic and private liberal education, however, college pres-idents representing the independent liberal arts sectorreacted intensely. They were vocal in asserting that AACno longer represented independent education and that thatentire sector had no voice and no representation among, theassociations in Washington.

The Sullivan Tenon seems to have been an attempt toforestall the increase of exclusive, special interest voicesoperating in Washington that would divide the community.AAC President Richard H. Sullivan, in his 1969 annualreport, proposed a system that would take into account theincreasingly necessary, aggressive role that the higher edu-cation community needed to play in Washington. Hewanted to make the community more directly a politicalentity but keep it as unified as possible. The private liberalarts colleges asked for stronger, more aggressive specialrepresentation in Washington.

Sullivan advocated the formation of two new associa-tions in Washington: a lobbying organization and aninformation=generating and -distributing organization to ex-plain higher education to the public (King 1975, p. 61). Hethought the two organizations were necessary for two rea-sons. First, higher education was diverse and 11Qt wellenough organized to obtain its goals. A new associationdevoted exclusively to lobbying would give higher educa-tion the kind of active political instrument it needed tohave the desired effect on federal decision making. Sec-ond, Sullivan believed that people at the grass roots, both


in and out of higher education, did not understand highereducation. He thought the second organization was neces-sary to get "the American people to Understand with moresophistication and realism the processes, and institutions ofhigher education . . ." (King 1975, p. 62).

While neither the Emergency Committee for the fullFunding of Education nor the Sullivan report became themajor means of increasing the association community'sactivities in federal relations, both affected the way inwhich the association community would operate in thefuture; Participation in the emergency committee becamea normal part of the community'sfederal activities.(NAICU's formation in 1976 had as its-exclusive purposelobbying, not necessari!y for the whole community but forthe independent sector.) Alid a public relations'group wasorganized to mobilize political efforts at the grass roots.

By the late 1960s, association community memberscould lOok back with some satisfaction uPon,what hadbeen accomplished in Washington. In the face of somepowerful divisive forces, a system had been'erected thatseemed to coordinate many aspects of higher education atthe national levelrelations with Congress and the execu-tive branch, the gathering and distribution of information,and even provision for a national job market for adminis-trators. The character of the 1970s began to emerge in thelate 1960s, when the circumstances which higher educa-tion and the associations were operating changed greatly.

During the 1960s, federal aid to support higher educationadvanced spectacularly. The major impediments that hadbeen so controversial and prevented education laws frombeing passedcivil rights issues, churchistate controver-sies, and fear of control by the federal, governmenthadnever been as significant for higher education as for thepublic schools, and, having been partially solved for thepublic schools through Title IV and other similar legisla-tion, the 1960s passed in a climate favorable to higher edu-cation legislation.

The years from 1963 to 1968 were particularly prosper- .ous for higher education, and income and expenditures forhigher education rose even more rapidly than the expand-ing enrollment (Gladieux and Wolanin 1976, p. 20). But theera also saw widespread campus disruption that threatenedto so alienate Congress and the voters that funds were in

46

65

danger of being reduced or cut off for students and facultyinvolved in campus disorders.

By the late}1960s, institutions of higher education began toexperience substantial financial trouble, A high rate of infla-tion, a slowing down of increases in federal spending forresearch,,and reductions in financial assistance for graduatestudents led to large deficits in some schools, the actualdemise of some institutions, and in genei-al a change fromthinking in terms of expansion. of enrollments and faculties tothe necessity to think in terms of reduction and reallocation.,"The talk, the planning, and the decisions . . . center[ed] onreallocating, on adding only by substitution, or cutting, trim-ming and even struggling to hang on" (Cheit 1971, p. 3).


66

THE 1970s: THE NIXON -FORD- CARTER YEARS ,

When Ricbard Nixon became president in the 1970s, theplace of higher education in American life was reappraised.Colleges and universities began to be seen as inefficient,expensive,, wasteful, unwilling to change, and of doubtfulbenefit to the nation and to individuals (Gladieux and

.Wolanin 1976, p. 26). They were also viewed as housing andpampering adicals and malcontents. With all the difficultiesthat were'perceived to be part of higher education, it wasnevertheless clear to most people in higher education andgovernment that federal government's role in fundinghigher education was going to increase substantially.

As the 1970s began, the federal activities of the majorassociations increased considerably. Part of this increased'activity was the result of the need of general higher educa-tion to respond to the impact of the legislation that hadpassed in the 1960s. But other serious and difficult financialproblems had surfaced in higher education, particularlyamong the small, private, liberal arts colleges, and, withthe fear of federal control through the acceptance of fed-eral money attenuated, higher education looked to the fed-eral government for help in relieving financial difficulties.For several years, the independent sector had been paint-ing a picture of economic disaster in whi0 it was predictedthat many of the private institutions would not survive thenext period without help. Some argued that only a few ofthe largest and wealthiest private institutions would remain(Gladieux and Wolanin 1978, p2 203).

'The Quest for Unity and the 1972 HigherEducation AmendmentsBy 1970, the associations, led by ACE, were convincedthat they must band together on as many.issues as possible.and speak with a united voice. Disunity had encouragedCongress to believe that higher education had no positionon some issues that were vital to colleges and universitiesor that the higher education community was simply indeci-sive. Unity on policy did give the associations more per-suasiye strength, and when the associations agreed, theyoften succeededin getting much of what they wanted.

Unity has its negative aspectS as well, however. Someassociation representatives noted that the quest for unity inthe early 1970s was so strong that -the associations lost flex-

As the 1970sbegan, thefederalactivities ofthe majorassociationsincreasedconsiderably.


ibility in their attempts to retain existing ties. Othersthought that when efforts to build and maintain consensuswere too avid, illuminating important issues and aspects ofthe associations' relationship to government and to stu-dents and institutions were buried.

The associations, so singularly dependent on the philoso-phy of a united front in some respects, were delighted thatthe major issue arising by the early'1979s was the questionof institutional aid versus 'direct student aid. It was a goodissue for several reasons. First, the associations welcomedthe shift in decision making from those close to the presi-dent to Congress. In Congress they believed they hadstrong support for institutional aid in the person of Repre-sentative Edith Green, the head of the Special Subcommit-tee on Education, and important allies in RepresentativesAlbert Quie and John Brademas. Further, the Hduse ofRepresentatives liad expertise in higher education and hadbeery the more active of the two branches of Congress. Butthe associations, particularly ACE, did not grasp the politi-cal dynamics operating inside the relevant subcommitteethe House or the position of Senator Claiborne Pell. Con-siderable infighting occurred. Representatives Quie andBrademas opposed Representative Green, and Senator Pellmistrusted the higher education community and becameangry at the associations and their positions on the ques-tion of federal aid.

,Most of the associations seemed not to understand thatnational opinion was going against them. While not oppos-ing direct student aid, they continued to express moreinterest in institutional aid, even as large forces were liningup to'prepare The way,for a major change in public pol-icya reallocation or redistribution of resources thatwould occur through direct student aid.

The issue reached a lever pitch when it came time toreview the Higher Education Act of 1965 and its mandates.When the smoke had cleared and the 1972 Amendmentshad become law, the direCtion of federal aid to higher edu-cation was unmistakably through direct aid to students andnot institutional aid. The associations had lost in a big way.Edith Given resigned her post on the education subcom-mittee and moved to the House Appropriations Commit-tee. The as-sociations were left with little that they hadagreed they wanted.. They were in great disarray, qs their

50

68

carefully orchestrated strategy of coalition building andspeaking with one united voice had left people with theimpression that the associations were out of touch withcurrent thinking about higher. education and that they cared

-mere-about-unity-in-their-publio-pronouncernents-thon_the_y__did about responding to the needs of students and parents.

The debacle created the circumstances for considerable%change in the community of associations and the way inwhich they did business. For the new president of ACE,Roger Heyns, it meant a relatively free hand,at least for ashort time, to make changes that would build up the wholegovernment relations area of ACE, to reorganize and appointa new team, and to look for new solutions that would notrely too heavily upon total unity among the associations onany single issue. His mandate to bring about changeswas enhanced by the Honey - Crowley report (1972), whichstrongly recommended changing the direction of ACE andincreasing its political clout. In addition, Honey wrote awidely read, stinging attack on the associations in Sciencemagazine, noting that the amendments would profoundlyaffect education for a long time and plainly asserting that the"failure of the Washington-based spokesmen for higher edu- .

cationto contribute significantly to the shaping of thoseamendments verges on the scandalous" (Honey 1972;p. 1243).

The_ 1972 Amendments and the role that the associationsdid not play in pushing them through created the conditionsfor a considerable amount of change in the associations. Inpassing the Higher Education Amendments of 1972, Con-gress produced the most significant higher education law ofthe 1970s. It set the tone for much of what followed in thedecade and continues, even today, to be the legislative cen-terpiece that defines the terms in which many of the presentfederal governmenthigher education relationships and con-troversies are discUssed and negotiated.

Government Regulations and Student AidA most significant section of the 1972 Amendments was theBasic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOGs). This pro-gram extended and changed the federal commitment toequal opportunity in the 1965 act to a "direct entitlement"program that reflected the notion that qualified studentswould have access to higher education. It was clearly a

Asiociations in Action 51

decision that favored student aid over institutional aid anda statement of government responsibility for equal educa-tional opportunity for all.

After the 1972 Amendments indicated the form anddirection of a large portion of aid to.higher education,another, not altogether new, issue became visible in thehigher educationfederal government arenathe oneroustask of dealing with federal government regulations. It wasan issue that preoccupied associations and higher educa-tion administrators for a major portion of the 1970s.

Government regulation was not new, but until the 1970s,most government regulation of institutions was at the statelevel. Regulation by the federal government was not animportant source of irritation and conflict, even in thepost World War II period of the G.I. Bill and increasedfederal funding of reszarch on college campuses. Althoughproblems existed, they did not seem to cause the uproarthat regulationS did in the 1970s. In the 1960s, themaindifficulties were not interference in the directions of andprocedure for research but in the realization of a growingdependence upon the federal government for funds. This,dependence later made the institutions susceptible tobroadly ranging regulations (those related to affirmativeaction, for example), which were not intended solely forhigher education but for all organizations receiving federalmoney. Further, some colleges and univei sities wereaffected by direct federal intervention to desegregate insti-tutions of higher education.

The federal programs of the 1970s were more numerousand much more complex than those of the 1960s. Newareas of governmental controlenvironmentaLlaws, safetyregulations, and antidiscrimination laws, for exampleallrequired federal monitoring. The accountability of institu-tions to the federal government was increasingly stressed.The 1972 Amendments represented a widening of the areasof legitimate federal intrusion and regulation (Gladieux andWolanin 1976, p. 39), and college and university presidentsand administrators saw in the perceived increases of regu-latory activity a future of rising administrative costs, time-consuming and irksome red tape, an attenuation, of institu-tional control over academic affairs, and threats to aca-demic freedom.

52

70

Presidents of colleges and universities became con-cerned about the regulations that had been accumulatingsince the 1960s and into the 1970s in the areas of socialactionthe Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act of1964, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1964,Executive Order 11246 in 1965, the Age Discrimination inEmployment Act of 1967, social security tax increases, theOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Environmen-tal Protection Agency regulations, aidlo the handicapped,and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of1974. They all seemed to higher education administratorsto weigh heavily on colleges and universities in the 1970s(Advisory Commission 1981):

The Distribution of Federal Funds andInstitutional ,ProblemsIn the early 1970s, the, financial problems of institution:, ofhigher education were much on the minds of college presi-dents and the associations. An aura of financial crisis andalarm concerning the actual survival of colleges and uni-versities was particularly notable in the private sector, andthe issue was introduced into the legislative debates thatpreceded the Higher Education Amendments of 1972 (Gla-dieux andWolanin 1976, p. 202).

Congress, however, did not respond to the dire predic-tions emanating from private colleges and universities, andit became quite apparent as the 1970s proceeo,:d that theindependent sector was not disappearing as predicted.Then private institutions developed the theme that thefinancial cutbacks and sacrifices necessary for survivalwere creating conditions that endangered their ability toretain their most prized assetsautonomy and uniqueness(Gladieux and Wolanin 1978, p. 203). They also perceivedthat the increasing differences in tuition beiween privateand public institutions was a threat to the private schools'ability to retain and maintain a socioeconomically diversestudent body. In fact, they argued, if the tuition differential.continued to increase, the threat to the survival of privatecolleges and universities would return and accelerate.

Once the associations recognized and accepted that thefederal government was going to provide financial aid tohigher education primarily through the instrument of stu-dent aid, both public and private institutions concentrated


71

on attempting to convince Congress and the succeedingadministrations in Washington that such aid should beplentiful. The private institutions were particularly con-cerned that federal aid to students must take into consider-ation the growing and troublesome differences between pri-vate and public tuition and that the federal governmentshould not place independent colleges and universities at

_ .such a disadvantage that they would be unable to competefor students. At the same time, public institutions wereconcerned that everyone be provided with enough aid to beable to go toschool.

As the issue of student versus institutional aid faded intothe background, federal aid to students emerged as the sig-nificant.strategy pursued by Congress and by both theNixon and Ford administrations. The general overall issuethen became how the federal government was to distribute\a, finite amount of morey that would improve edupation butne*discriminate against either the public or the privateschnols. The question of how to promote equity, equality,and ci6oity in higher education was to haunt higher educa-tion an he Washington higher education community forthe rest ot\the decade and into the 1980s. (In 1984, theissue heated", p to an incandescent point that threatened toundo, at least mporarily, the cooperation and informationsharing that had een so carefully nurtured by the associa-tions, in the 1970s.) he nroblem was and-is that despite theneed and the will to t at private and public higher educa-tion evenhandedly, the id system as it was constituted inthe late 1970s and early 1 Os had the consequence oftreating the private and pub 'c sectors differently. An equi-table formula acceptable'to b Q sectors has so far eludednational decision makers.

The Haves and the Have NotsA basis for increasingly difficult proble s since the postWorld War H period is the distinction bet een the"haves" and the "have nots" among colleg23 and univer-sities. The distinction refers to a number of ite sdiffer-ences in size, resources, prestige, number of wen thy andgenerous alumni, endowments, capital resources, a lity torecruit and retain attractive students and faculty, andon. While the continuum from rich to poor is long and mtidimensional with blurred gradations (and while all institu-

54

72

tions need additional funds), it is still evident that someinstitutions have more than others. No particular associa-tion includes only the haves as members, although theAssociation of American Universities comes close, and noassociation arming the Big Seven includes only have nots,although the American Association of State CollegesandUniversities and the Association of American Colleges rep-resent fairly large numbers of institutions.with somewhatthin resources.

The distinction between public and private control is not asimportant for the haves as it is for the haye nets. The havesare most often heavily involved in graduate education andresearch and are likely to be united on such questions as aidto graduate students and what to do about government regu-lations on research and the level of funding for whom.

For the have nots, the differences between public andprivate institutions are exacerbated. The lifeblood of thepublicly controlled have nots is low tuition and federalgrants that cover a large percentage of total costs for a stu-dent, thus attracting students who might not otherwiseattend college. For the private have nots, the necessity forfederal funding based upon "need" rather than "across-the-board" 'financing is so great that, without somethinglike the half-cost funding formula, many institutionsbelieve they would go out of business altogether.

The following matrix illustrates the kinds of problemsand positions that the Big Seven find themselves confront-ing on the basis of where they stand in the private/publicdichotomy and the distinction between haves and have nots.When associations fit into all four categories, they can rep-resent communitywide positions (like ACE) or a special-ized interest (like AAC). Associations with members in allfour categories tend to seek resolution of_conflict withinthe association and within the community and attempt toformulate a unified approach to federal relations.

When associations are present in two of the four categb-ries (like AAU), the controversy between private and pub-lic institutions is muted, but the differences between havesand have nots are increased. Even more significant, how-ever, is the case of NAICU, which finds itself concernedbut less involved in the differences between haves andhave nots and a great deal more concerned about public/private controversies.


73

Haves

Have Nots

Public Private

ACE ACEAAU AAUNASULGC NAICUAAC AAC

AASCU ACCU*CASC* NAICUAACJC CASC*ACE AACJC.AAC ACE

AACCPCU*

"ACCUAssociation of Catholic Colleges and Universities, CASCCouncil for the Advancement of Small Colleges, CPCUCouncil of Prot-estant Colleges and Universities.

When an association is represented in only one category(like AASCU), it often finds itself at odds with the entireprivate sector, both predominantly haves and predomi-nantly have nots, and less than totally satisfied with-eventhe association whose members are predominantly pub-licly controlled institutions (NASULGC) or with the asso-ciations whose members are a mix of public and privateinstitutions (AAU and ACE). Because the public /privatecontroversy strikes directly at the heart of institutional sur-vival, the differences between public and private institu-tions are of the greatest significance to AASCU. TheProtestant- and Catholic-affiliated college associations,although from the private sector, are in the same relativeposition as AASCU but count for less as individual associ-ations than does AASCU. Thus, they find themselves mostcomfortable under NAICU's umbrella.

The Washington Education Associgtions Engage the 1970sThe basic thrust of the 1970s was to involve the federalgovernment ever more deeply into higher education'saffairs, and the individual associations and the communityof associations could respond in no other way than toengage more actively and substantively in a relationshipwith the federal government. If it had not been clear to

56

everyone before 1972 that the most important business ofmost of the core associations was federal relations, therewas little doubt about it later. (Although it was not, nor isit still, the area where most associations spend their ener-gies and resources, it is nevertheless the most important.)Even so, the associations' activity in governmental rela-tions was limited:

Obviously, the governmental relations of higher educa-tion are ,widely distributed and comprise only a part ofthe activities.of the associations. It is estimated_thatabout 35 people within the associations are devoting allof their time to federal relations, a d-tabout 24 are devot-ing half their time, for a total-0 about 50 full-time peo-ple (Heyns 1973, p.

In 1972, the-asiOciations faced not only a great deal ofpressure- to-engage actively in federal relations to reenterthe-game after the events of 1972 but also a growing need

--- to obtain more federal funds, to stave off increasingly irri-tating and bothersome government regulations, to reducethe rift between private and public institutions, and to mutethe confroritations between the haves and have nots. Thesedifficulties produced another dilemma: how to representeach segment of higher education and each institution moreaggressively at the national leVel while cocrdinating theactivities of the associations' diverse members.

The associations responded. ACE, which had borne thebrunt of criticism in the late 1960s and early 1970s for fail-ing to organize .a strong higher education presence inWashington, could not realistically become an associationable to satisfy all of its constituencies completely and, atthe same time aggressively pursue the cause of higher edu-cation in Washington. But, beginning in 1972, substantialchanges improved its organizational and political structureand its machinery for quickly and effectively responding tothe issues of national consequence to higher education.

Some of the most important changes took place in theCouncil itself. Roger Heyns, previously chancellor of theUniversity of California-Berkeley, succeeded Logan Wil-son as president of ACE. Heyns used much of his first yearin office to try to understand how the association and thecommunity operated, to deal with the Council's financial


problems, and to develop the Council's priorities. He prsented three general areas for work at the Council's annumeeting in 1972: to take the lead in developing a rationalefor who should finance higher education by initiating newand improving existing planning and coordinating mecha-nisms (particularly with the Education Commission of theStates); to take seriously and act upon the reports of thevarious commissions that had recently studied variousaspects of higher education; and to consider such issues asinstitutional autonomy, the rights of women and minorities,and the maintenance of diversity in higher education(Semas 1972).

Although he planned to expand the budget of the Coun-cil's federal relations commission, Heyns saw federal rela-tions as only one of a large number of activities in whichthe Council should be engaged. In his first years, Heynstook the important step of appointing Stephen K. Bailey asvice president .of the Council, a position that had beenvacant during the last years of Logan Wilson's tenure aspresident. Bailey was a well-known, highly respected polit-ical scientist from Syracuse University and was likely toappreciate the significance of increased activity in federalrelations. With Bailey's aid, Heyns began reshaping theCouncil's federal relations program.

Another significant appointment was the recruitment ofCharles B. Saunders to replace John Morse as director ofACE's Division of Governmental Relations. Saunders'sWashington background was extensive: He had been aSenate staffer on educational issues, deputy assistant sec-retary of education, and acting assistant secretary of edu-cation during part of the Nixon administration.

Saunders began a series of internal changes that greatlyenhanced the capacity of the Council and the Washingtoncommunity to monitor and respond to activities on CapitolHill and in the White House. He brought together an infor-mal group in late 1974 that began to meet' weekly. Its pur-pose was to act as a mechanism for regular interactionamong the Big Six on governmental matters. It was laterexpanded to include several other associations, amongthem the National Association of College and UniversityBusiness officers and the National Association of Indepen-dent Colleges and Universities. Saunders's ambitiousintent was to have the group share. information, discuss

58

76

issues with which the community should be dealing, talkabout how the issues should be dealt with, and then dividethe responsibility for dealing with the issues.

In an effort to have the ACE Division of GovernmentalRelations increase its role as coordinator, Saunders's officeand Saunders himself began drafting position papers onfederal issues expressing the associations' sense of,theissues and their position or positions on them. The divisioncirculates drafts of these position papers to the communityof associations and seeks comments from their executiveofficers. Given enough consensus, the associationsapprove the drafts; sometimes the issue concerns only afew associations, so only those affected approve it; andoccasionally , divisions among the v arious associations areso deep that ACE and the Division of Governmental Rela-tions mustback off and find a new position.*

Later, Saunders began conducting a weekly meeting of amuch larger group (35 to 40).of association representatives,including some from the Nat6nal Education Associationand studePt associations. This group essentially acts as amonitor, it meets every Friday and participants talk aboutupcoming issues and what happened the previous week.

The capability for policy analysis for the Washingtonassociation community had been talked about for years andrecommended in 1971 (Bloland and Wilson 1971), but noth-ing was implemented until the Council inaugurated the Pol-icy Analysis Service in the summer of 1973. Its tasksincluded studying policy issues, gathering and arrangingdata on issues, preparing summaries of policy issues, andresponding to queries from Congress and,the president(McNamara 1976a). From the beginning, the Policy Analy-sis Service was engaged in what became its primary task,providing support services to ACE's Division of Govern-mentaIRelations (Heyns 1977, p. 1).

The Honey-Crowley report, referred to earlier, called fordrastic changes in the organization of the Council, amongthem a number of recommendations directed toward amuch heavier concentration in government relat:ans. Presi-dent Heyns accepted these recommendations only in part;he was opposed to the idea "that the Council bp exclu-sively (or nearly so) concerned with governmental rela-

*Charles B. Saunders 1984, interview.

Saundersbegan a seriesof internalchanges thatgreatlyenhanced thecapacity of theCouncil andtheWashingtoneducationcommunity. .


77

tions" (King 1975, p. 102). But he was concerned with theservice role of the Council. Programs and services-likeAcademic Affairs, Women in Higher Education, Adminis-trative Affairs, and Leadership Development have beenimportant in creating and sustaining ACE's image in thehigher education world. More important, they have helpedgenerate funds for the services and other activities neededto carry on the Council's role. This service role, however,was to have its own negative consequences in ACE's rela-tions with other associations.

Heyris also has a strong sense of the political limitationsof the Council in the Washington community. Its member-ship covers the entire range of educational interests, andmany of them are incompatible. Other associations that aremembers of the Council have their own agendas and theirown constituents. The community is, after all. a group ofautonomous associations whose cooperation with oneanother is always voluntary. The Council realistically hadto approach a more active role somewhat slowly, howeverimpatient its critics. Heyns stressed the cooperative role ofACE, not its activist role. He strongly urged that the posi-tion of the Council as "coordinator, convener, and cata-lyst" be emphasized, terms that have come up again andagain in discussions of the Council's role (Heyns 1977, p.6). "The basic posture has been for the Council to encour-age joint efforts. to avoid duplication, and to limit its ownefforts to those problems that are of concern to the entirepostsecondary community" (p. 6).

To implement this posture, Heyns developed the con-cept of the "lead agency" or the "chosen instrument":

The associations should collectively agree that, when-ever appropriate, one association will be responsible fordischarging a particular function. The implications arethat no one else will duplicate that function, and all willhelp the chosen instrument (Heyns 1973, p. 94).

The concept of chosen instrument was used as a method todeal partially with the overlap and duplication that hadbeen plaguing the educational associations for some years.

Internally, other inno,,ations occurred in the Council'sstructure and activities during Heyns's tenure of office. A

76

0

particularly strong criticism of the Council had been itsrelationship' with member associationsthe group of asso-ciations that had been instrumental in creating the Councilin 1918. Those groups had felt for years that the Council'spolicies should reflect their concerns, if not totally, `at leastsubstantially. And the way to accomplish that aim was tohave morb direct representation on the Council's majordecision-making bodies: In 1973, this change was partiallyeffected by a constitutional change that added representa-tives from the associations to the Council's Board of Direc-tors. The asspciation representatives to the board were theuniversity aturcollege presidents who had been electedheads of their respective associations.

Further, in 1973, a body consisting of those presidentselected as heads of the major associations (that is, theelected head of the American Council on Education andthe elected heads and the "hired hand" executive heads ofthe other Big Six associations) was introduced. Informallycalled the Coordinating Committee, the group was laterexpanded to include the elected head and the executivehead of the National Association of Independent Collegesand Universities. The committee's task was to enhance thecoordinating function of the association community byidentifying issues and problems requiring cooperation andto help choose and monitor the lead agencies that wouldconcentrate on the problems (Heyns 1977, p. 4). Thisapproach did not work well, for, according to one top asso-ciation official, "the people who knew everything were thehired hands, so tht presidents just sat backand listened.And the hired hands talked in front of their principals.Instead of the principals' calming the bureaucrats downand saying, 'Hey fellows, get together,' what happenedwas each one was showing his principal what a genius hewas." This committee also suffered from growth pangs.Everyone wanted to be a member, and the bigger itbecame, the less effective it was.

Also under Heyns's leadership, the Secretariat wasreconstituted as a formal part of the Council's organiza-tional structure. Even though the president of the Councilhad presided over its meetings since its inception, the Sec-retariat was always an independent body of associationexecutives. The Secretariat continued its role as an arenafor information exchange and as an informal coordinating


79

!

r

instrument, but under Heyns's leadership, the ACE presi-dent became more formally responsible for its work, andAGE provided support staff for the implementation of itsactivities. The Secretariat also began to_increase in sizeand, in doing so, reduced its role as a decision-makingorganization while retaining itslunction as an importantforum for the exchange of ideas.

Perhaps the most important consequence of the formali-zation and growth of the Secretariat was the president'sdecision to form a smaller, informal group of the executiveheads of seven major presidentially based associations.This group came to be known as "The Brethren," and itbecame the most important body`to identify and debatehigher education, exchange information, and coordinatepolicy in the higher education community.

Community Changes and ActivitiesThe public sectorAlthough all of the associations were changing and adjust-ing to the modified circumstances of the 1970s, in manyways, NASULGC, AASCU, and AACJC kept a steadycourse by participating in the community, responding totheir constituents' needs, and presenting the case for pub-lic institutions in higher education. In some areas, how-,ever, differences among these three associations surfacedas controversies from time to time. Although interested inundergraduate education, NASULGC was at the forefrontin representing the interests of graduate education (withAA U and ACE), particularly in research and in generatingresearch money from the, federal government. NASULGCopposed the increase of federal regulation that accompa-hied those research funds. These issues were of less signifi-cance to AASCU but at times caused real consternationamong the institutional members of AACJC. It sometimesappeared to AACJC that a piece of legislation or a regula-tion favored graduate education and/or research at theexpense of undergraduate education, particularly in two-year colleges.

In the 1970s, other changes in the individual associations. not only affected those associations but also modified thecommunity of associations by changing their internal commu-nity relationships and their relationships with government.

62 80

The Association of American UniversitiesAAU had maintained a publicly passive posture toward thefederal government and other associations well into thelate 19606. Even the increased flow of federal funds toAAU members did not make the association activist in theearly and mid-1960s. By1967 and 1968, however, the' com-bination of turmoil on their campuses and the slowdown inthe increase of federal support for research led the AAU'sleaders'to create a formal organizational structure for deal-ing with the federal governmentthe Council on FederalRelations. Dr.,Charles Kidd, a career government officialwith considerable experience and expertise accumulatedfrom service in the Federal Council on Science and Tech-nology, the Social Security Administration, the Council ofEconomic Advisors, and the National Institutes of Health,was named director of the AAU's Council on Federal Rela-tions in 1969. He became executive secretary of the associ-ation in 1971. AAU was launched on a more active pro-gram of federal relations.

In the mid to late 1970s, the AAU leadership again con-sciously decided to upgrade the level of its activities tobecome a mole aggressive association in relation to thefederal government and teincrease its staff. It continued towork closely with the other associations, particularly with-NASULGC. and ACE.

The politicization of the independents: From AAC to NAICUAmong the most dramatic changes in'the,Mashingtonhigher education community were those affecting AAC.For most of its existence, AAC had been one of the mostconservative of the core associations and, as late as 1963,had opposed any federal aid to institutions of higher educa-tion. The major opposition to the association's involve-ment with the federal government had been from a smallgroup of presidents of Protestant-affiliated colleges. In1962, for example, during critical-House Rules Committeedeliberations on the Higher Education Facilities Act, theysent telegrams to the committee opposing federally spon-sored aid for construction and scholarships and testified ina,Senate committee against the bill, against federal aid ingeneral, and in support of tax credits (King 1975, p. 68).

This stance had considerable effect on AAC as a whole

'Associations in Action 63

811

and contributed greatly to its conservative image ofeschewing involvement with the federal. government. Thi'santipolitical stance changed considerably in 1967, however,when more than 100 representatives of college§ and associ-ations from, the private sector assembled in Washington todiscuss means for establishing effective national represen-tation for the independent colleges and universities, a nec-essary representation they felt was lacking at the. time.This movement represented several strains of thought inthe independent sector of higher education: One wasexpressed by President Weimer- Hicks of KalamazooCollege:

Most of us connected with small colleges are anti federallegislation. . . . But if the game is going to be playedwith Washington as the focal point, then we have to bein Washington (cited in King 1975, p. 87).

More important for the community and for AAC, how-ever, was that the deep division within AAC was broughtto public attention. From its beginnings, AAC had pro-vided a home and representation for liberal arts schoolsand the liberal arts perspective. Thus, AAC included andreflected the interests of not just the small independent col-leges but also public institutions and large institutionswhose interests were in liberal education, indicated by theinclusion of a number of liberal arts deans from IVrge insti-tutions. 4

The presidents of small, independent colleges lookedaround and saw that the other sectors of higher educationeach were strongly represented in Washington. None ofthe associations seemed dedicated to the specific-interestsof the small, independent colleges, particularly when itseemed to representatives of those institutions that thepublic institutions were getting a continually larger phare ofthe nation's students, oney, and other resources,

By the late 1960s, A C had been deeply involved in theproblems of undergraduate institutions in relation to thefederal government. Also during the 1960s, the Federationof State Associat:Jns of Independent Colleges and Univer-sities (FSAICU) had been formalized as a national coordi-nating agency for the independent schools within AAC,and AAC provided it with staff, funds, and space. It had its

82

own board of directors and executive secretary. In con-tinuing to pursue a more active policy for independent col-leges and universities, FSAICU was reorganized in 1971,beComing the National Council for Independent Collegesand Universities (NCICU). To further its interests in fed-eral relations, it named Howard Holcomb as director offederal affairs (Hunt 1977, p. 50). Now its board presum-ably could stake its own position in federal affairs, com-pletely independent from AAC. NCICU was stillpart ofAAC, however, which continued to supply staff and fundsfor its activities.

In 1975, a study undertaken by Edgar Carlson, executivedirector of the Minnesota Private College Council, con-cluded that "there must be a separate national voice forthe independent sector" (Hunt 1977, p. 51). AAC, if itwished to take this study seriously, could eliminate its pub-lic school members or establish an organization separatefrom AAC to rdpresent the independent sector of highereducation. Catlson favored creating a new organization,and the, plan was approved at an AAC/NCICU meeting.

A new independent organization, the National Associa-tion of Independent Colleges and Universities, wasformed, and NCICU was disbanded. This move left AACfree to pursue its interests in liberal education and the neworganization to represent private colleges and universities.NAICU became an association with a diverse membershipthat included not only large, established, independentresearch universities but also, according to its brochure,"two-year colleges and technical institutes; four-yearliberal arts collegessome nonsectarian, others church-or faith-related; schools of business, music, bible study,theology, health, and law.?'*

NAICU quickly became the seventh member of the BigSix and a core association with satellite associationsaround it. It became an umbrella association for the inde-pendent sector with an umbrella association's problems.

I feel as though I'm trying to manage a very complicatedkind of rickety umbrella, with some of the spokes beinglonger and shorter and lots of indite and winds threaten-ing to turn the umbrella completely inside out.t

IPNAICUbrochure 1983, p. i.tin!, s Phillips 1984, interview.


.113iM111. 11110,

As an umbrella organization with diverse members display-ing diverse interests, its problem became similar to some ofthose of ACE. Almost 90 percent of NAICU's potentialmembers had fewer than 2,500 students, but the NAICUboard of directors started with the presidents of JohnsHopkins, Stanford, and Boston universities on it. Thequestion of domination by big was raised early inNAICU's history (Hunt 1977, p. 51) but was later muted.And, as if to punctuate its umbrella status, NAICU orga-nized a group of association executive directors and calledit the Secretariat, in the fashion of ACE and its Secretariat.

During the transitional and somewhat hectic mid-1970s,the private sector spawned other organizations intended topinpoint specific interests of the independent sector whilerepresenting the whole of the private-college spectrum.They were invariably viewed as reflecting not the wholeprivate sector but some segment of it. Such an associationwas the Consortium on Financing of High..r Education(COFHE). Formed in 1974, its 30 member institutions werecharacterized as private, elite, and prestigious. Its purposewas to serve its members through planning, research, andconsulting. Its initial chair was David Truman, president ofMount Holyoke College, and although its headquartersWere not in Washington, it was representiid in Washington.COFHE published an influential report on federal aid tostudents in 1975. Well-researched and -written, the reportrecommended modifying basic and supplemental grant pro.grams to students in ways COFHE hoped the private sec-tor would approve and the public sector w&61d not-oppose.Much of the independent sector did not view the recom-mendations positively, however, and only AAU and ACEgave it even limited support (Gladieux and Wolanin 1978,p. 211). Its major drawback, as far as the small collegeswere concerned, was its proposal to eliminate the half-costlimit on student aid at a time when the small colleges werestrongly attached to it in principle. The report also pro-posed that what was gained by increase in access could bemade up by including supplementary grants tied loosely totuition costs in private institutions. It was not clear tomany schools that this proposal would benefit small privateinstitutions, and some risk seemed to be involved in thischange at a time when the private institutions feared thatany change would jeopardize their existence. The small

private colleges felt the proposal would benefit only largeprivate institutions with higher tuition.

Student associationsStudent associations had been quite active (aggressk e butnot sophisticated) in the late 1960s and early 1970s. TheNational Student Lobby was noted for its strong represen-tation of students' consumer interests. The National Stu-dent Education Fund had been effective through itsresearch and attempts to lead students' opinions (Hamilton1977, p. 43). The National Student Association was notactive in the passage of the 1976 Amendments to theHigher Education Act, but a new student organization rep-resenting students from private, prestigious schoolstheCoalition of Independent University Students (COIUS)became active.

In recent years, however, old Washington hands havenot seen much activity from student associations andregard them as minor players in the Washington highereducation scene. Activity among student associationsapparently depends upon who is elected to the leadership.

The Improving Image: The Big Six in the 1970iThe 1976 Education Amendments, -eauthorizing the 1972Amendments, did not provoke the kind of heated contro-versy that was part of the legislative battles of 1972. The1976 legislation consisted primarily of extensions of 4W1972 act, and although some of the issues of 1972 re-:emerged, the legislation did not change significantly.

By 1976, the image of the associations had changed. Theblasts of the Honey-Crowley report, the harsh words ofSenator Pell and Congressman Brademas, the negativeposition of Senator Moynihan, and the bleak picturepainted by Gladieux and Wolanin gave way to a more opti-mistic view of the associations. The wallflower began todance, and Senator Pell found the higher education associ-ations more helpful in his efforts to extend and amend the1972 Amendments (McNamara 1976b). The associationsmade progress, becoming "effective voices in the formula-tion of federal higher education policy" (Wolanin 1976, p.184). By 1977, the associations were attempting "to antici-pate and take the initiative on emerging issues rather thanreacting to and having to catch up with events" (Gladieux

By 1977, theassociationswoeattempting"to anticipateand take theinitiative onemergingissues. .

7,

,Associations in Action

8567

1977, p. 4-3). This optimism, however, was tempered byreminders of how far the associations had to go to be reallyeffective, particularly in lobbying the grass roots, but gen-erally the associations received considerably higher marksbythe mid-I970s.

The,CounciPs.new president: Jack PeltasonIn the spring of 1977, to the surprise of the Washingtonassociation community, Roger Heyns announced his inten-tion to resign as president of ACE. Jack Peltason, chancel-lor of the Champaign/Urbana campus of the University ofIllinois, was.selected as the eighth president of the Ameri-can Council on Education. Peltason, a political scientist,took office in the fall of 1977. As with his predecessor,there was little doubt that change would occur during Pel-tason's tenure.

President Peltason continued ACE's development in thedirection of a more sophisticated and knowledgeableagency in its relationship with the federal government andcontinued the search for ways to unite the higher educationcommunity on significant policy_ questions. Fe saw part ofhis mandate as broadening the areas of interest the Councilwould be involved in and increasing services to members.

Among Peltason's early acts was naming seven taskforces to evaluate ACE and look at its future (Peltason1978). The designation of the task forces indicated Pelta-son's perceptions of the Council's possibilities and limita-tions, and he invoked the now time-honored "coordina-tion, convening, and catalytic" roles (Heyns 1973) as theessence of ACE's service to its constithency, stressing thatACE's responsibilities were large, its activities and theireffects often invisible, its resources limited, and its staffsmall. Therefore, Peltason indicated, the Council needed tocall upon the other Washington associations and theirresources to "leverage" the capacity of the ACE staff (Pel-tason 1978, p. 2). More controversial was Peltason's pro-posal that modest "staff resources must be augmentedmore and more by ACE program money, venture capital,which we shall make strenuous efforts to raise" (p. 2).

Predictably, the first priority was to strengthen theCouncil's and other associations' influence on federal poli-cies affecting higher education. Added to that priority was

68

86

N

a comnntment to enter the state governmenthigher educa-tion arena, initially by building the capacity to provideinformation on interrelated federal and state higher educa-tion policies. Peltason's second priority was to have the

0 Council engage in more research directed toward issue-centered policy analysis, and the.third was to broadenACE's commitment to programs of continuing eduCationfor administrators and to.identify and help place high-quality leaders in higher education, emphasizing the inclu-sion of women and minorities. Finally, ACE was to extendits efforts to increase communication with leaders frombusiness, labor, and agriculture (Peltason.1978).

Change in the CouncilImplementing these priorities meant recommending a reor-ganization of tht Council. The first major change wasaimed at improving the Council's coordinating functionamong the associations.by allocating "permanent" placeson ACE's board for the major institutionally based associa-tions belonging to ACE.

The Division of Governmental Relations kept its centralfunctions of coordinating and monitoring federal relationsand its claim to first priority on policy research and results,but a state government relations section was added o thedivision, and Charles Saunders, director of the division,was tiamed_Vice President for Governmental Affairs.' Thus,the way was clear for government relations to become aneven more significant Activity for ACE.

Peltason proposed to house most of the Council's pro-grammatic functions, the direct services to the institutions,in the Division of Institutional Relations. The Division ofPolicy Analysis was placed under the leadership of VicePresident Atwell and included policy analysis, economicand-financial research, the higher education panel, andadministrative and management issues. A Division ofExternal Relations was proposed whose purpose would beto focus on public information (maintaining the library),membership development, and liaison with business, labor,and other groups. A Division of International EducationalRelations would take ruder its jurisdiction many of theCouncil's international activities, leaving the Fulbrightprogram an independent project.

Associations in Action 69.

87

Tax Credits and the Middle Income StudentAssistance Act of 1978With inflation rapidly driving the cost of education upward,considerable support was building in Congress for tax reliefto, middle-income families paying the expenses of their off-spying in colleges and universities. The Senate was espe-cially favorable to such legislation and had passed twosuch proposals in 1976.

Although those proposals failed to clear the House, theidea did not die, and in 1978, a tax relief proposal for middle-income families with children in college almost passed. Themost formidable version was sponsored by Senators Pack-wood and Moynihan. Essentially, the bill would haveallowed a tax credit of up to $100 in 1978 to be applied to afamily's personal income tax. The maximum would beincreased to $250 in 1979 (Advisory Commission 1981, p. 48).Such antagonists as the Carter administration, the AmericanFederation of Teachers, the National Education Association,and The Washington Post strongly opposed the bill(McNamara 1978, p. 44).

The higher education associations were ambivalentabout such legislation in 1978, primarily because it raisedthe possibility of benefiting the private more than the pub-lic sector. Even more important, the higher education asso-ciations were perhaps beginning to believe that direct infu-sions of money to all of higher education were a more nec-essary form of relief than tax credits.

The associations developed a plan for targeting addi-tional aid to middle-income families through increases inthe existing student aid programs. As of February' 1, 1978,"virtually all of the major postsecondary education groups[had] signed off on a $2 billion student assistance packageto be proposed as an alternative for tuition tax credits."* Aweek later Congressman William fiord introduced the Mid-dle Income Student Assistance Act, which not only broad-ened eligibility for guaranteed student loans to all studentsbut also raised the eligibility limits for Pell grants from$15,000 in family income to $25,000. Ford presented thisbill as an alternative to tuition tax credits and used it tohelp persuade the somewhat reluctant Carter administra-

*Thomas Wolamn 1978, memorandum to Congressman Ford.

7088

tion to sponsor the bill. The associations continued theirheavy involvement in the legislation, participating in hear-ings.and otherwise demonstrating their support for the billfrom its inception to its passage. The legislation waspassed in 1978.

The Department of EducationThat education should have a stronger voice and more visi-ble place in the federal government through its elevation tocabinet status had been part of the thinkingof educatorsand administrators for many years, particularly among theleaders of elementary and secondary education. JimmyCarter had expressed interest in the crettion of a Depart-ment of Education in his 1976 presidential campaign, andthe National Education Association (NEA) eageriyendorsed Carter for president soon after. The AmericanFederation of Teachers opposed it, however, and thehigher education community was unenthusiastic or ambiva-lent about the creation of such a department. Respondingto the division within the ranks of higher education, ACEdid not officially take a position on the issue (AdvisoryCommission 1981). President Peltason expressed some ofthe ambiguities of the higher education community in not-ing ". . . the fears are of greater regulation, and the hopesare that the department will be a platform of greater visibil-ity" (p. 49).

The initial lack of enthusiasm on the part of higher edu-cation stemmed from several perceptions. It looked asthough elementary and secondary education interestswould dominate the department because of NEA's part inbringing about its creation and because budgets for elemen-tary and secondary education federal programs were solarge in comparison to those of higher education. Further,many astute observers of higher education relations havemaintained for years that the dispersal of higher educationprograms to a variety of departments an&bureaus hasworked to the advantage of universities and colleges inmany cases. The creation of a Department of Educationmight therefore lead to an unwelcomed consolidation ofprograms under the aegis of an unfriendly federal govern-ment unit.

In the later stages of the bill, however, the higher eduza-tion community did find common ground upon which to


89

support the formation of the Department of Education.While NEA had a major stake in the creation of the depart-ment and thus was perhaps less critical of the way in whichprograms were included or excluded, the higher educationassociations, led by ACE, expressed their reservations andpressed for specific changes that would attenuate their con-cerns. They advocated line responsibilities instead of staffPositions for the assistant ecretaries, opposed the transferof th2 Nation oundati n on the Arts and Humanities tothe new departme d supported the transfer of the Col-lege Housing Loan Program from the Department of Hous-ing and Urban Development to the Education Department(Saunders 19.78). The final version of the bill reflected mostof their recommendations.

The Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1980In early fall 1980, Congress passed a landmark piece of leg-islation, the Education Amendments of 1980, extendingfederal,higher education programs through fiscal year1984-85. Recognizing that the costs of attending collegehad become much greater, Congress significantly raised thelimits of federally financed grants and loans for studentsover the ensuing five years. Included in the act's benefitswere raises in maximum Supplemental Educational Oppor-tunity Grants, increases in State Student Incentive Grants,increases in dollars for the College Work Study programs,raises in the cumulative loan limits for both financiallydependent and independent students, and a new low inter-est loan program for parents of dependent students. Theact further provided for aid to urban universities and grad-uate fellowships. These provisions of the 1980 Amend-ments reflected most of the priorities expressed by spokes-men for higher education in Washington.

None of these provisions were as politically significantfor the higher education community, however, as the pro-visions of the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants(BEOGs). Public institutions had been displeased with theprevious legislation, which provided that education costscovered by federal grants could not be above 50 percent ofa student's total costs. The consequence of that provision,the public institutions argued, was that a major burden wasplaced on less affluent students, who would have difficultyraising the other 50 pet cent of their total educational costs.

72

90

_ I

Thus, the public institutions, led by AASCU, called forchanging the formula from 50 percent to a higher percent-*. The private institutions favored retaining the half-costrule and saw an increased percentage covered by federalgrants as quite likely to encourage the movement of stu-dents from private institutions to public institutions, adrain perceived as threatening to the very existence ofindependent colleges and universities.

This conflict between public and private institutions hadbeen plaguing the association community for some_titne,and the associations took steps to try to resolve the conflictreasonably before the reauthorization bill came up. Theassociations, with ACE as leader, over two and one-halfyears explored the dimensions of this and other legislativeissues thatdivided the community and were likely tobecome major problems. They tried to foresee the implica-tions'of various alternative legislative options.

After much effort, the Washington associations and theirmembers reached an understanding of the consequencesfor their organizations, individually and collectively, of themost likelydecisions that would be made concerning the1980 reauthorization bill. In the summer of 1979, Congress-man Ford, chair of the Subcommittee on PostsecondaryEducation, challenged the association community to sub-mit proposals for changes in the bill that they could agreeupon as necessary and desirable.

By then, much preliminary work had been done, and theassociations, were able to agree on those proposals. Aftersome intense consultation, the associations provided lan-guage for the legislation that spelled out precisely theextent of their agreement on a wide variety of proposals,particularly their agreement on BEOGs, the program thathad been so troublesome for so long. Six association seniorofficials signed a letter to Congressman Ford spelling outthe specific language agreed upon as a solution to the con-flict over the half-cost provisions. The letter stated inpart, "We believe this proposal provides a simple andstraightforward method of alleviating the problems [that]have been associated with the half-cost lithitation" (U.S.Congress 1979, p. 19).

The bill that emerged from the House Education andLabor Committee included most of thd changes the com-munity had proposed (ACE 1979a, p. 2). "Mr. Ford and


9173

the Subcommittee relied on the 'best' of what each of thestudents, university administrators, governmental officials,and legislators had to offer" (Chronicle of Higher Educa-tion 1- September 1979, p. 15). ,

The BEOG program that eventually passed raised thelimit from $1,800 to $1,900 the first year, with increases ineach of the following years to 1985-86, when the maximumwas to reach $2,600. At the same time, the grants werelimited in 1981-82 to 50 percent of an individual student'stotal costs, but thereafter the. ceiling was raised by 5 per-cent each year to 1985-86, when it would reach 70 percent.

The two years of work culminating in the enactment ofthe law reflected the positive changes in the way the highereducation community conducted its federal relations and inthe improved image that law makers and congressionalstaff had of the associations and their ability to provideexpert, correct, timely, and helpful information. From Sen-ator Pell's reference to the associations as "the fudge fac-tory in Dupont Circle" (Baker and Barnes 1980) to thefavorable reviews from Capitol Hill in 1980 was a consider-able and welcome distance for the associations

End, of the 1970s: Internal Turmoil and Solving ProblemsAs the end of the decade approached, some issues hadbeen partially resolved, old issues had.resurfaced, and newproblems and possibilities were emerging.

The strong, hostile representations by university presi-dents against the perceived tide of federal regulations gaveway to a sense that Congress was sympathetic and increas-ingly aware of the negative aspects of those regulations andwas open to easing the burden they placed on institutions(Bailey 1978). Senator Pell, for example, in response to aspeech by President Kingman Brewster of,Yale attackingregulation by the federal government, stated for theCongressional Record that:

President Brewster's remarks are cogent. . . . Hepointed out that there is a growing amount of control,not through direct intervention, but through obliqueapproaches. . . . Although his speech attacks some ofthe programs and bills which I have supported, I thinkhis remarks should be read by every Senator (AdvisoryCommission 1981, p. 44).

74

492

Although the Reauthorization Act Ofe1980 was not allthat everyone in higher education could wish for and some .

deep divisions among the sectors were still not resolved,t the associations had achieved major success in building

community consensus and in setting in motion a collectivecourse Of action that was politically realistic and advanta-geous to the cause of higher education. In the late 1970s,however, one of those substantive, structural problemsthat the associations continually Monitor, tinker with inter-mittently, and never quite resolve came to the fore oncegain. At its most basic level, it has to do with the associa-

tions' function of representation and how it should bedone. In the form that it took in the late 1970s and early1980s, it revolved around several direct questions andreached Dupont Circle from a variety of sources.

Institutions.of higher education need national representa-tion and the services that the Washington associations pro-vide. But this representation, however much needed, tendsto generate problems on.occasion because at least threekinds of representation and three types of associations areinvolved. First, institutions need representation thatspeaks for the whole of higher education, the unified voiceof higher education (ACE). Second, each sector (public,private, community colleges, and so on) needs its voice tobe heard and to be counted in national decision making.Third, each institution includes units requiring a nationalvoice (graduate schools, business officers, developmentpeople, and so on), each of which forms an associationcomprised of universities and colleges as members.

This picture is complicated immensely by the fact thatsome associations attempt to perform all three kinds ofrepresentation (the American Council on Education, forexample), some try to represent the second and third (theAmerican Association of State Colleges and Universities),and some tend to concentrate on one (the National Associ-ation of Independent Colleges and Universities). Addingto the whole ambiguous and messy situation is the factthat some associations (likellikCE) perform both represen-tation and service for their Members and some only repre-sentation.sentation.

This multivoiced system of representation means thai foran institution to be sufficiently represented in Washington,it may need to belong to a number of associations Simulta-

3


3

r

neously and to pay dues to each. A large, research-oriented Class I university dominated by its graduate pro-,gram, for example, might belong toACE, NASULGC,AAC, the Council of Graduate Schools, the National Asso-ciation of College and University Business Officers, andthe Council for the AtivAticement and Support of Educa-tion. And this list is probably incomplete. Each associationhas annual dues, and in some cases fees are required forservices. The dues can be substantial. In 1980, AAU'sannual dues were a flat $13,000, ACE's ranged frbm $385to $5,680, and AACJC's ranged from $500 to $1,500 (Scully1979, p.10).

If one.institution pays dues for seven or eight Member-ships or more, the to al cost can be great. When costs arecut back or budgets g illy tightened, questions areraised: "Does the institutio need to belong to all thoseassociations?" "Is this'me bership in multiple organiza-tions cost effective?" "IS it sible that several associa-tions are supplying essentially the same representation and'or services?" And the final, Ominous one, "Are we payingfor unnecessary overlap and duplication?"

At that point, a call is often sounded for a study of the '

role of associations in NYashington and their relatiorNhipswith their members and with each other. In the late 1970s.the questions were se.lous enough to initiate two studies,one by an initial group of six presidents (the "Gang ofSix," which eventually kecame identified as the "Gang ofTen") and the other by the faculty members of the higher ;

education center of the University of Michigan under the ,

direction of Dr. Joseph Cosand. A good deal of sturin al&drang accompanied this examination of the associations'role because such study brings to the surface and accen-tuates the difficulties of'dealing with a set of closely relatedand unresolved community prqblems.

First, what should be the role of the American Councilon Education? Is it primarily an association of associationswith a strictly coordinative role? Or is it, life other associ-ations, an .Nrganization representing a constuency of insti-tutions and therefore a rival of the other associations? Thisproblem was exacerbated in the period before the twostudies by the Council's decision to initiate new services inareas where other associations were already involved.ACE 11 organized a presidents committee on intercolle-

76

94'

,giate athletics,and a council of chief academic officerswithin the Council, and other associations viewed it asinvasion's of their territory. This move played apart inoriginating the Gang of Six (Scully 1979;p. 10).

President Peltason's tenure had been marked by consid-erable action on the part of ACE. He reorganized, movedthe Council into new fields, expanded its role, and gener-ally maintained a strong presidency. He responded force-fully Co the heat generated by ACE's initiatives:

Some people . . . think that the associations ought to bedoing more together, rather than as individual segments.I've made it no secret that my mandate here is not justto add up what everybody thinks, but to bea catalystand coordinator (Scully 1979, p. 1(S).

Although the Gang of Six seems to have originated as anindependent band of dissident presidents of higher educa-tion institutions and executive heads of associations; it wasdomesticated quickly by an ACE board of directors 'fleet-ing at the end of June 1979. The boaid decided that ACE'scoordinating committee would sponsor a study and wouldseek funds to underwrite it (Fretwell 1980). Lattr, thecoordinating committee instructed President Peltason toappoint a subcommittee to do the study (which includedthe original six presidents), and the study was underway.

The study had three major goals: Cl) to study and make". recommendatioqs on the relations among the associations

as presently structured; (2) to examine the "proliferationof spseialized associations", (Fretwell 1980, p. 2); an(3) t.dr look at other ways of organizing the national repre-sentation Of-higher education. The study concentrated onthe first issue, but all three areas included other recom*mendations. ,

The Gang of Tin benefited from the Michigan study,presidential Views of Higher Education's National Institu-

Vional Membership Associations (Cosand et al. 1980), -which surveyed 1,284 presidents of colleges and universi-ties and interviewed 33 knowledgeable observers of thenational higher education scene. Thf subcommittee espe-cially noted,' the finding of the Cosand study that more thanone -third of the presidents, with a choice of five models orassociation relationships to choose from favored the

z

0

Alsockitions in Actions. 77

.95

model of the current, pluralistic system, and another 27percent chose the stronger, coordinated model.

In the Michigan study, the presidents generally viewedpositively the associations to which their institutionsbelonged and saw federal relations as the central activity ofACE and the other associations for the 1980s (Cosand etaal. 1980, p. 6). They saw,,,

go

need for increased coordina-tion of the associations fulfill this mandate, but theirview was tempered by the majority opinion among.ACEmembers that members are not represented equally in theassociations.

The responses of the 33 national observers in the Michi-gan study emphasized that the associations were "reactiveto issues and problems" to a greater degree than were thepresidents and stressed the value of a "unified position on:important issues" (Cosand et al. 1980, p. 4).

After considering a variety of alternative structural mod-els for the Council, the Gang of Ten rejected proposals toradically reorient the Council to resemble the organizationof the AFL;CIO or the Chamber of Commerce (Fretwell-198.1).

The report touched upon a number of aspects of associa-tion activities aad relationships, including a call for morecoordination, which was the Council's responsibility, anadmonition to resolve the occupancy prpblems of One -

Dupont Circle and enhance its role as (National Center forHigher Education, a plea for a moratorium on new asso0a-don programs and upon the creation of new associationi.$and a reminder that asso.ciatiOns should remember the con-cept of "lead agency." The most important results of thesubcommittee's findings were recommendations that thevice president of ACE be responsible for improving associ-ation relations and that associations check ,with each otherbefore instituting new activities and policies that wouldaffect other associations. This latter point was milde promi-nently enough so that the Gang of Ten study becameknown as the "No Surprises Report."

78

9b

THE 1980s: CONFRONTING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION

The National Elections of 1980' and Their AftermathThe election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency and thesweeping changes that took place in Congress left thehigher education community in.a state of uncertainty andconfusion. Although President Carter's search for "coher-ence and a sense of direction" had generally resulted intighter restrictions on spending for higher education, signif-icant legislation had passed in the Carter 'yearsthe 1976Amendments to the Higher Education Act, the 197$ Mid-dle Income Student Assistance Act, the 1980 Amendments,which raised the maximum benefits among higher educa-lion programs, and the law creating,the Department ofEducation. .

A major anchor for the education community in theCarter and previous administrations was the long-standingpredictability of the ideological position that was reflectedin the actions of Congress and the presidents. What Ches-ter Finn characterized as "the liberal consensus" haddeveloped and shaped national educational policy for morethan 20 years (Finn 1980).

This liberal consensus envisioned a vigorous and active;role for the federal government to achieve the goals ofequal opportunity, access to schools, desegregation,ncouragethent and support for research, and elimination

o discrimination involving age, sex, and race."Reform andinnovation" were emphasized (Wilson 1982, p. 10). Andthe federal government could be counted upon to use fund -ing\incentives and federal laws and regulations to achievethose ends.

The consensus sought to attenuate the exclusionary con-nection between a high level of income and access toeducation and to give more people a chance at educa-tional opportunity than would have been the case if thefederal government had kept out of the field (Chester E.Finn, Jr,. cited in Wilson 1982,.p. 10).

The keepers of the liberal consensus were identified witha wide variety of institutions. and organizations: the Ford

Foundation and others, research-oriented universities,national associations (including many of those in the BigSix plus One), some members of Congress and the admin-istration, newspapers like the New York Times and The


Washington Post, think tanks like the Brookings Institu-'tion, and influential individuals from higher education(Clark Kerr, Harold Howe, and Ernest Bayer) (Wilson1982, pp, 9 -10).

The amalgam of positions and policies among the liberalconsensus was viewed positivelyor at least neutrallyby many different groups, particularly in education. As_the1980 elections drew near, however, the long-standing,issueof the balance between equalityand quality in educationbecame more acute and threatened the stability of the lib-eral consensus in Washington. How educational policiesshould be shaped by emphasis upon one or the other andhow funds should be distributed in relation to quality andequality were issues brought to publiC attention by budgetproblems, inflation,, questions of accountability, studentachievement, regulations, and ambivalence about affirma-tive action. The.debate was considerably enlivened by the.challenge to the liberal consensus posed by a neoconserva-tive position whose most articulate representatives were.closely connected with the academic worldSidney Hook,Nathan Glazer, and Peter Drucker, for example.

The Reagan PresidencyAs the 1980 elections approached, the education commu-nity was not certain about what would happen to existinghigher education programs, but events strongly indicatedcutbacks in educational funding and prograins. The Reagancampaign had stressed an attack on inflation, reduction oftaxes and government regulation, control of the federal def-icit, and concentration on national defense. The rhetoric ofthe campaign indicated considerable hostility toward thefederal government and its past role in domestic affairs anda preference for encouraging decision making and responsi-bEty in the hands of the private sector and stare an localgovernments. Although the Reagan forces did not seespecially interested in education per se, they pledged toeliminate the Department of Education. The general impli-cation for education emerging from the Reagan campaignwas that responsibility for higher education would devolveto a far greater extent upon the resources of private indi-viduals and families and upon state and local authorities.The clearest statement of the direction the new administra-tion might take was in a Heritage Foundation publication,

80

98

Mandate for Leadership: Policy ManageMent in a Conse-vative Administration (Docksai and others 1979). Thereport proposed major changes in federal programs for ele-mentary and secondary education as well as modificationof the existing structure of federal policies and programsfor higher education. It left no doubtabout its posturetoward the Department of Education:

In the short time the Department has beenin'existence,an established collection of literature has:developedchronicling the administrative excesses of the bepart-me nt, the wasted time, money, and energies that havefailed to improve educational quality or extend its reach.For the most part, and given the most ideal of circum-stances, the authors of this report -would prefer to erasewhat Congress has done during,the.Past two years(Docksai and others 1979, p.' 170).

Although very little could be done about the 1980Amendments and-legislation passed during the Carteradministration could be modified only partially for 1981,spending levels in student Aid programs in 1981 were 10percent lower than in 1980 appropriations. Congress thenpassed stopgap legislation that cut education programs byanother 5 percent from 1981.

The proposed higher education budget for fiscal year.1982 surprised the higher education associations and star-tled members of Congress who did not immediately per-ceive how the budget would affect higher education. Theresult was that, aside from the Guaranteed Student LoanProgram, appropriations for higher education were reduced12 percent in the 1982 budget (Stanfield 1982, p. 1262).

The Associations and the Reagan Budget for 1983In late December 1981, after Congress had passed the Stop-gap spending resolution, the associations got a look at apreliminary copy of the 1983 budget. It called for a cut of40 percent in Pell grants, from $2.3 billion to $1.4 billion,and proposed that three other higher educationprogramsbe discontinued:

With the experience of the 1982 cuts and the 1983 budgetconfronting them, the higher education associations orga-nized and fought aggressively to prevent the cuts and the

The proposedhighereducationbudget forfiscal year1982 surprisedthe highereducationassociationsand startled'members ofCongress. . . .


99

drastic consequences for higher education. Twenty highereducation associations formed the Action Committee forHigher Education (ACI1E) and undertook an immenselyeffective public relations campaign among their constitu-ents to stave off the proposed reductions. ACHE was in-strumental in persuading television networks, newspapers,and weekly news magazines that student aid was an issueof national importance. The committee conducted a suc-cessful grass-roots campaign to alert parents and studentsthat student aid was-in jeopardy. It put out a series of"how-to' pamphlets: "How to Lobby Your Congress-.man," "How to Write Letters to Your Local Newspaper,""How to Call a Press Conference," "How to Explain How.This Proposal Impacts on Your Campus."

One Washington association.official desCribed the ensu-ing impact on Washington:

The Reagan administration tried to cut student aid inhalf. We organized a very careful grass-roots campaign,and the Hill has rarely seen such screaming. They heardfrom aunts, uncles, parents, students, faculty, collegeadministrators, trustees. We'd walk around the Hill, andpeople would meet us, and they would say, "I;ve neverseen anything like this. When are you going to turn it

off?"

As expected, the House Education andlabor Commit-tee, with its consistent support for education programs,voted for increases for higher education programs. Unex-pectedly, however, Republican conservatives like JackKemp and Orrin Hatch also came down on the side of stu-dent aid. Congress ignored the Reagan cuts and in someareasncreased student aid. It overrode the president'sveto. While the associations believed that their campaignto alert the grass roots had been successful, they werequick to acknowledge that it would not always work. Inthis successful instance of 'mobilizing the hinterlands,Congress was especially receptive to the wishes of thefolks back home: (1) Elections were to take place in thefall; (2) almost no voters voiced their opposition; and(3) the clearest, loudest voices were those of middle-classcitizens. Congress listened.

82.1 0 0

CURRENT ISSUES AND THE FUTURE: THE WASHINGTONCOMMUNITY IN THE LAST HALF OF THE DECADE

The Present EnvironmentThe Big Six plus One and the, Washington higher educationassociations currently operate in a much more complexenvironment than they did in the 1960s and even in the1970s. Thus, the structure of the 'community is also morecomplex.

Perhaps because of its size and visibility, higher educa-den seems to be directly affected by more federal legisla-tion, much of which is initiated for programs other thanhigher education and is not written with any thought con-cerning its pOSsible effect on higher education. The highereducation enterprise is not alone in. this respect, Nit if thecommunity is to deal with its complicated Washingtonenvironmetit;it must continually monitor governmentactivities disseminate relevant information to itsmembers,find a community-position if possible, and communicatethat position to the appropriate largets in Congress and theadministration. When it all works, the Washington associa-tion community is indeed a formidable spokesnian forhigher education.

A number oLmechanisms have been established to moni-for the federal government's activities; some have beendiscarded, others modified. .

Federal relations officesThe upgrading of federal relations offices in all of the BigSix is one response to the increasingly complex world ofWashington, and Saunders's organization of regular, fre-quent meetingsof association federal relations officers iscrucial to monitoring and the process of influence. Themeetings are central in sounding out the community, fos-tering cooperation among the associations, and finding thebasis for coordinated efforts. A major contribution is theestablishment of policy research and analysis units, themost visible of which ACE initiated and now involves theassociations Working together in the Association Councilfor Policy Analysis and Research.,

One indicator of the current sophistication and expertisein federal relations is, the compilation and publication ofACE's "Higher Education Agendas," which have beenpublished in the Educational Record over the years and'sent as memos to the 96th, 97th, and 98th Congresses. Theagendas present higher education's agreed-upon, overall


I 01

priorities for a particular Congress and spell out specificcommunity positions on particular issues that fall under thejurisdiction of the relevant committees in the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate. The range of interests is 'widefrom issues like student aid that the higher eduCa-tion community would be expected to address to suchseemingly far-removed issues as postalsubsidies (ACE1983, p. 5) and the bankruptcy laws (p. 2). Their targetsinclude not only the House and Senate committees thatdeal directly with education and appropriations but also theSenate Commerce, Science, and Trangportation Commit-tee and the House Government Operations Committee.

ACE is not alone in this expertise and thorough researchand,in presenting higher education's positions. The otherfive of the Big Six are also noted for their depth, thorough-ness, and capable presentations to Congress and the

administratfon.

The diPision oflaborThe immensity of the taskbeing on top of relevant legis-lation and the activities of the federal governmenthas led

to important divisions of labor among the associations inthe 1980s. One way of proceeding has been the roughlysimilar continuation of the "lead agency," the conceptintroduced by Roger Heyns in the 1970s. Now, however,the division of tasks is more informal, with a particularassociation assuming the responsibility for Monitoring andinforming the rest of the community in a particular area asits own interests dictate. At present, NAICU concentrateson tax:problems, AAU on the health field, science, andfederal research grants and contracts, NASULGC onenergy policies, and AASCU on urban affairs and theServicemen's Opportunity College.

The division of labor has its cooperative aspects in thesharing of information with the other associations. Thecombination of the division of labor and cooperation meansthat associations. might be designated to operate an activityjointlyas for the Academic Collective Bargaining Servicecoordinated by AAC, AASCU, and AACJC.

A further variation on this theme is the AssociationCouncil for Policy Analysis and Research (ACPAR). Com-prised of 25 associations, its office and staff are operatedby ACE, but its responsibilities are to the associations that

84

102

are members. ACPAR'.s purposes have been to identifyissues of importance to higher education, td bring them tonational attention, to encourage coordination of researchand analysis among the Washington associations, and toadvise ACE's Policy and Analysis Division.* The ActionCommitte for Higher Education, the coalition of some 20associations that was instrumental in persuading Congressto override President Reagan's veto in 1982, has had signif-icant input from associations beyond the Big Six, includingthe Council for the Advancement and Support of Educa-tion. TheConsortium for. International Cooperation inHigher Education, comprised of members of associationswith international programs, and the former EmergencyCommittee. for Full Funding of Education have consoli-dated their efforts and become the Education FundingCommittee,. a large group representing a wide variety ofeducational interests. Thus, a-pattern of.dividing the laborand cooperating has emerged, involving groups usuallysmaller than the whole Washington education communitybut laiger than only the Big Sik.

Another division of labor is among the associations' fed-eral relatiOns officers. Individual officers are responsiblefor monitoring hearings in the House and the Senate, orga-nizing presentations at hearings and other gatherings,speaking to individual Congressmen and Department ofEducation officials, and so on. Although the federal rela-tions staff at any particular association is small, each cancall on the support and services of the entireyashingtonhigher education community.

This division of labor also calls forth a way of operatingfederal relations in the 1980s that is differerAt from the pat-tern of the 1960s. If so much information 13 to be gathered,it must also be disseminated. The assock.tions are muchmore open in their exchange of informa..lon than they werein the 1960s, and the community is mush the richer for it.

In the mid-1980s, the American Council on Education isthe center of efforts to coordinate the sectors of higher

`education through the association community. Its mandateto seek a unified course for higher education in Washing-ton, its responsibilities for association relations, its role inorganizing federal relations, and the prominent place ACE

*ACPAR 1982, 1984, public statments.

Associations in Action -85

103*. )

has in the various communitywide committees and policy-making groups all attest to the Council's position in theforefront. Even'so, ACE is a partner in some recentlyformed associationwide committees,that it did not initiateor that it joined only after the committees were formed.

The BrethrenOne of the patterns of cooperation and division of laboramong the associations is the current organization of theBig Six. It is a well-itognized, functional necessity thatthe full-time top executives of the **major associations mustsee each other regularly --and to do so without the repre-sentatives of the satellite associations and without theelected leaders of their associations. Several mechanismshave been used toward this end in the past. Perhaps theoriginal constituent members of the Council in 1918 weresuch a group. The Tuesday Luncheon Club-of the 1960shad something of thesquality for a period of time. The Sec- ^retariat of the 1960s and early 1970s was clearly a mecha-nism for the executive leaders of the major associations togather, talk informally, and seek cooperation. Such groupshave been subject to a loss of power and great erosion oftheir significance over time, however. A small group of thetop leaders of the major associations is an attractive gath-ering, viewed as liaving valuable information, prestige, andperhaps even power, and other association leaders want tobe included. Although a good reason is often apparent toinclude one or more other association leaders at somepoint, eventually the small, informal group becoines largerand more formal. The absentee rate of chiefexecutive offi-cers begins to rise precipitously. Staff members from theassociationTaccount for the majori f the attendees, andthe group changes.character. And the ajor association .

chief executives will be found to have fo med a new, small,informal, exclusive forum for frank discussion, unencum-bered by staff and representatives fiorn the satellite associ-ations. Meetings of the Brethren are the successor to theSecretariat of the 1980s. The Secretariat continues; but it isfar larger than it was and it no longer serves as a forum forthe Big Six and a few others to discuss significant eventson the Washington higher education scene. If the Brethrenbegin to follow the pattern of the Secretariat, one mayeventually find a new small group of the core associations,

86

104

perhaps a "Brethren Born ligain" or, given theirs penchantfor rivalry as well as cooperation; "Siblings Six."

aAssociations and the wider world of interestsDuring the 1960s, some association watchers expressedconcdrn that higher education was too insulated in Wash-ington, that it would never count very much in Washingtondecision making until it was able to make common causewith larger, more powerfulnterest groups, particularlybusiness.and labor..In the 1980s2 however, the as'sociationshavelakeristeps-to broaden the reach of their interests,and ACE, for example, has organized a functioning andflourishing higher educationbusiness forum and a similarset of activities with labor.

Community norms and the 1980sThe values and. guidelines for action in the 1980s are anextension of the norms from the 1960s. The aim is still tofind bases for Cooperation white representing individualconstituencies to the best.of an association's ability. Thesenorms have been elaborated and given new strength in the1980s,'however.

The publicly stated dictum fromthe 1960s. that associa-tions should consult, with each other but not get in the wayof each other's legislative objectives has been supersededby the much stronger doctrine that the community shouldnot be surprised by other associations' activities and thatthey must seek concrete ways to coordinate their activi-ties. They are backed by all association communicationsnetwork that operates daily and is- further strengthened bythe often-voiced sentiment that each association under-stands: In governmental relations, the unstated meaning ofa mutual veto among the associations is that either theassociations cooperate or they face staleinate and destruc-tive inactivity. Striking out on one's own begins to looklike a lonely and risky enterprise.

Another corollary of the "no surprises" concept is thatit should apply to relations with the federal government.Thus, when all else fails and divisions run deep, as oneranking association official put it: It's our responsibility togo up on the Hill clad say, "This is a matter of seriousdivision in the community. This sector feels this way, and

44. '

.1


105

that sector feels that way for the following reasons."That's a perfectly legitimate role.

The associations' realization in'the 1960s that not onlycould the individual associations succeed without cc:Ver-

d ating with other associations but also that.the communityneeded the support and participation of its institutionalleaders has developed into a working consensus that thegrass-roots must be cultivated and listened to and that thehigher education community must take steps to cooperatewith other major sectors of the society. It is now a rka.listic

belief by association executives that successful coordina-tion and cooperation have a tendency to be invisible and tooccur daily. Some of their best and most successful work is

, not and will not be known by their constituents.

What Lies Ahead?.

The publics and the independentsThe,mo5.4 important current issue, and the one most likely

to be most important in the near futhre, is the problem ofstudent aid. The associations were at* to cooperate andachieved considerable success in the reauthorization pack-.age 41'980. Though neither side considered it ideal, bothKipateand public institutions thought they could live withit.he combinedecooperative efforts of the public and pri-vate sectors were-crucial in 1982 in preserving the studentaid system, which looked as though it might disintegratewith the proposed legislation from the administration. In1984, however, the,ihadequacies, problemS, and conflictsembedded in the aid structure had dev,eloped to such an

extent that the: carefully negotiated and maintained cooper-ation resulting from the 1980 legislation was on the verge of

seriousisruption.By 1984, the privilte institutions were widely concerned

that they had made a bad deal in 19.80, that the compromisepackage they had awed to had not been funded in parts,and that they wereWorse-off in 1984 as a result." ublieinstitutions were not happy either, because they felt thatthe Pell grants should have been higher and that theyshould not have agreed to the half-cost limitations.

The haves and have netsAlthough erne response to the alleged differences between

88

4

.haves and have nots is that m stitutions are now and/or will be have nots in the fut e, i is still an issue, panic;'flatly in relation to the indepen nt institutions. Becausethe distinction involves contrasts not only in size andresources but also in interests; the possibility of new, sepa-ratist national associations, threatening the unity of theindependent sector, continues.

Other issues, large and smallThe list of concerns facing associations is long and theissues complicated. The immense federal debt and itspotential negative consequences seem to place jn jeopardyall domestic programs, including higher education. Thechanging tax structure, with its implications for reducingincentives to contribute to nonprofit organizations, loomso.1 the horizon. The necessitylor increased funding and thecompetitiveness of institutions for research fund p threatenthe peer system of review at the federal level. Mademiccontrol of intercollegiate athletics provides yet anotherpotentially divisive arena for the higher education sectors,and even the National Center for Higher Education, thebuilding at One Dupont Circle whose purpose is theimprovement of,communicatiortand coordination amongthe associations by haying them under one roof, on occa-sion is the psis for an "issue" ("Who owns the-building?""What is its purpOse?").

'Despitepast-successbs and current capabilities, thisgroup has by no means resolved its problems, nor does itreally have much control over what will happen to thehiglKeducation enterprise in Washington in the future. Inthe final analysis, the higher educlation community is essen-tially a bit,player,ple to come stage at crucialmoments and make a difference but not in charge of theplot, the-tempo of the Acti6n, or even the. scenery. At theniacrojevel, threats of war, depression, internationalcrises, inflation, the national debt, ideological swings right

-*and left, changes in the nationalThood, and specific politi-cal events all occur continuallyand unpreflictablyandhigher education can do nothing about them exoppt toattempt to cope. On a micro level, legislation regularlypasses that has very significant consequences for highereducationbut often decision makers do not take thoseconsequences into consideration. f


10,7

89

.1

In the mid-1980s, the associations can look back withconsiderable satisfaction at having been importantlyittvolved in federal higher education policy. Despite educa-tion's having been on short rations since 1972 and havingexperienced a number of disappointments, solid successes .;occurred in 1976, 1978, 1980, and 1982. The'associationscan point with some pride to two major accomplishments.They were influential in helping to shape and preserve fed-eral funding for higher education (particularly student aid),and in the process they transformed themselves from apassive, partially informed, often divided, nonpoliticalcommunity into a keenly attentive, highly informed, andskillfully-assertive body of associations participating dailyin Washington higher education policy and events. Al-though they realistically understand that they will probablynever rival the resources and clout enjoyed by some of thelarger associations representing business, labor, and agri-culture, they have reason to believe that a good deal ofworking machinery is in place and operational and that theassociations,have the personnel and organizational skilland knowledge to move quickly and effectively when theoccasion arises.

108i

REFERENCES

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education abstracts andindexes the current literature on higher education for the NationalInstitute of Education's monthly bibliographic journal, Resourcesin Education. Most of these publications are available through theERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). For publicationscited in this bibliography that are available from EDRS,,orderingnumber and price are included. Readers who wish to order a pub-lication should write to theERIC.Document Reproduction Ser-vice, Wheeler. Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia/22304. Wheno ring, please specify the document number. Documents areavailable as noted in microfiche (MF) and paper copy (PC).Because prices are subject to change, it is advisable to check thelatest issue.of Resources in Education forcurreht cost based onthe number of pages in the publication.Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1981.

"The Evolution pf a Problematic Partnership: The Feds andHigher Ed." In The Federal Role in the Federal System: TheDynaniics of Growth. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Education, National Institute of Ed kion, Educa4tional Resource and Informatiqn Center. ED 209 977. 67 pp.MF$1.19; PC$7.39.

Aldrich; Howk.d E., and Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1976. "Environmentsof Organizations." Annual Review of Sociology 2: 79-105.

Almond, Gabriel. 1983. "Corporatism, Pluralism, and Profes-sional Memory." World Pqlitics 35(2): 245-60.

American Council on Education. 1966: Annual Report. Washing-ton,D.C.: ACE.

1969. Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: ACE.. 1976. Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: ACE.. 1979a. "Activities Report." Washington, D.C.: ACE,

Division of Governmental Relations.Winter 1979b. "A Higher Education Agenda for the

96thCongress." Educational Record 60(1): 103-21.. Spring 1981. "A Higher Education Agenda for the 97th

Congress." Educational Record 62(2): 8-47.1983. "A Higher Education Agenda for the 98th Con-

gress." Memo to members of the 98th Congress.Association Council for Policy Analysis and Research. 1982. The

National Investment in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.:ACPAR.

1984. America Has a New Urgency. Washington, D.C.:ACPAR.

Babbidge, Homer D., Jr., and Rosenzweig, Robert. 1962. TheFederal Interest in HigherEducation. New York: McGraw-


1j0 9

Babchuck, Nicholas, and Warriner, Charles K. 1965. "Introduc-tion." Sociological Inquiry 35(2): 135-37.

Bailey, Stephen K. 1975. Education Interest Groups in the

Nation's Capital. Washington, D.C.: American Council onEducation.

1978. "The Peculiar Mixture: Public Norms and PrivateSpaces." In Government Regulation of Higher Education,edited by Walter Hobbs. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.

Baker, Donald P., and, Barnes, Bart. 28 January 1980. "CollegeLobbyists Flocking Here in Quest for Funds." Washington

Post.Bloland, Harland G. 1968. "National Associations and the*Shap-

ing of Federal Higher Education Policy." Sociology of Educa-

, tion 41(2): 156-77. ,

1969a. Higher Education Associations in a Decentralized

System. Berkeley, Cal.: Center for Research and Developmentin Higher Education, ED 029 619. 214 pp. `MFS1.19; PC$18.72.

1969b. "The Politicization of Higher Education Organiza-tions: Assets and Liabilities." In Agony and Promise: CurrentIssues in Higher Education, edited ty G. Kerry Smith. SanFrancisco: Josiey-Bass.

Bloland, Harland G., and Bloland,-Sue M. 1974. AmericanLearned Societies in Transitions New'York: McGraw-Hill.

Bloland, Harland G.,-and Wilson, 0. Meredith. 1971. Report on

the Higher Education Secretqriat Community. Washington,

D.C.: Secretariat.Breneman, David W., and Finn, Chester E., Jr., eds. 1978. Public

Policy and Private Higher Education. Washington, D.C.:Brooking's Institution.

Brian, J., and Freeman, J. 1980. "Organizational Proliferationand Density of Dependent Selection." In The OrganizationalLife Cycle, edited by John Kimberly, Robert Miles, and Asso-ciates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carlson, Edgar M. 1976. "The National Representation Project:A Report and an Accounting." Liberal Learning 62(2): 274-83.

Cheit, Earl F. 1971. The New Depression in Higher Education.

New York: McGraw-Hill.Child, John, and Kieser, Alfred. 198.1. "The Development of

Organizations over Time." In Handbook of Organizational

Design, vol. 1, edited by Paul Nystrom and William Starbuck.New York: Oxford University Press.

Clark, Peter B., and Wilson, James Q. 1961. "Incentive Systems:

A Theory of Organization." Administrative Science Quarterly

6(2): 129-66.

92

110

Commager, Henry Steele, ed. 1947. Alexis de Tocqueville'sDemocracy in America. NeW York: Oxford University Press.

Cosand: Joseph P.; Gurin, Gerald; Peterson,.Marvin W.; andBrister, Frank R. 1980. Presidential Views of Higher Educa-tion's.National Institutional Membership Associations: Summary Report. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,-Center forthe Study of Higher Education.

Coser, Lewis, 1956. The Functions of Social Cottflict. New York:Free Press of Glencoe.

Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. 1982-83. Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: CASE.

Dobbins, Charles G., ed. 1968. American Council on Education:. Leadership and Chronology, 1918-1968. Washington, D.C.:

American Council on Education.Docksai, _Ronald F., and Others. 1979. "The Department of ,Edu-

_cation:9'ln Mandate for Leadership: Policy Management in aConservative Administration. Washington, D.C.: HeritageFoundation,

Emerson, Richard M. 1962. "Power- Dependence Relations."American Sociologidal Review 27(1): 31-34.

Finn, ChesterE., Jr. 1978. Scholars, Dollars, and Bureaucrats.Washington, D.C. : Brookings Institution.

September 1980. "The Future of Liberal Education'sLiberal Consensus," Change 12(6): 25-3Q.

Fretwell, E. K. October 1980. "A Report to the CoordinatingCommittee from the Subcommittee on Association Relations."Washington, D.C,: American \Council on Education.

--. Winter 1981. "Association Report." Educational Record62(1): 78-80.

Gladieux, Lawrence E. 1977. "Education Lobbies Come intoTheir Own." Change 9(3): 42-43.

Gladieux, Lawrence E., and Wolanin, Thomas R. 1976. Congressand the Colleges. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath.

1978. "Federal Politics." In Public Policy and Private .Higher Education, edited by David Breneman and Chester E.Finn, Jr. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Hamilton, Bette Everett. 1977. "Federal Policy Networks forPostsecondary EdUcation." Ph.D. dissertation, University ofMichigan.

Hayes, Michael T. 1978. "The Semi-Sovereign Pressure Groups:A Critique of Current Theory and an Alternative Typology."Journal of Politics 40(1): 134-61.

Heyns, Roger. 4973. "The National Educational Establishment."Educational Record 54(2): 93-99.


I 1 1

1977. "The President's Report." In ACE Annual Report1976. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

HFbbs, Walter C., ed. 1978. Government Regulation in HigherEducation. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. .

Toney, John C. December 1972. "The Election, Politics, andHigher Education." Science 78(4067): 1243.

1979. "Higher Education's Great Opportunity." Educa-tional Recori160(3):, 329-35.

oney, John C., and Crowley, John C. 1972. "The Future of theAmerican Council on Education: A Report on Its Governmen-tal and Related Activities." Washington, D.C.: ACE.ook, Janet. 25 August 1980. "A,Compromise Student-Loan

. .

Plan Voted by House-Senate Conferees." Chronicle of HigherEducation 22(1): 17-18.

Hrebener, Ronald, and Scott, Ruth K. 1982. Interest Group Poli-tics in America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Hunt, Susan. February 1977. "NAICU's Growing Pains."Change 9(2): 50-51.

Kimberly, John R. 1980. "Initiation, Innovation, ancrInstitulion-' alization of the Creation Process." In The Organizational Life

Cycle, edited by John Kimberly, Robert Miles, and Associates.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kimberly, John R.; Miles,Robert H.; and Associates, eds. 1980.\The Organizational Life Cycle. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.

Kt gt Lauriston. 1972. "The Vanishing Grantsman." Change .

41(4):.8 -9.

. 1975. The Washington Lobbyists for Highei. Education.Lrington, Mass.: LexingtOn Books.

Lips t, Seymour M. 1960. Political Man, New York: Doubleday.Lips t, Seymour; Trow, Martin; and Coleman, James. 1962.

Un n Democracy. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books.! David-S. 1965. "Need Achievement and Entrepre-

neurship: A Longitudinal Study." Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology .1(4): 389-92,

McConnell, Grant. 1966. Private Power and American pemoc-racy, New York: Knopf. .

McNamara, William. 1976a. "Backing Demands with Data."Change 8(9): 46-47.

1976b, "The Wallflower Dances: The Education LobbySteps Out." CASE Currents 2(1): 4-7.

112

March 1978. "The Tax Credit Debate." Change 10(3):44-45+ ._

Magarrell, Jack. 5 February 1979. "Academe and Industry Weigha New Alliance." Chronicle of Higher Education 17(21): 1+ .

Michels, Robert. 1915. Political Parties. New work: Dover.Moe, Terry M. 1980. The Organization of Interests. Chicago:

University of Chicago, ress... 1981. "Toward a Broader View of Interest Groups."

Journal at Politics 43: 531-43.Morse; John F. 1969. "The Federal Role in Education: One

View." Proceedings: Symposium on Financing Higher Educa-tion. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.

Moynihan, Daniel P. 1975. "The Politics of Higher Education."Daedalus 104(1): 128-47.

Murray, Michael A. 1976. "Defining the Higher EducationLobby." Journal of Higher Education 57(1): 79-92.

Nall, Frank. 1967. "National Associations." In The EmergentAmerican Society, edited by W. Warner, D. B. Unwajla, and J.H. Trimm. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Newman, Frank, et al. 1971. Report on Higher Education. Wash-ington, D.C.: Departmentf Health, Education, and Welfare.ED 049 718.136 pp. MF$1.19; PC not available EDRS.

Nystrom, Paul, and Starbuck, William, eds. 1981. Handbook ofOrganizational Design, vol. I. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Olson, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action. Rev. ed.New York: Schocken.

Peltason, Jack W. 1978. "Five Year Platning: Initial Steps."Memorandum to ACE Board of Directors.

Peterson, Richard A. 1981. "Entrepreneurship and Organiza-tion." In Handbook of Organizational Design, vol. 1, edited byPaul Nystrdm and William Starbuck. New York: Oxford,Uni-versity Press.

Pettit, Lawrence K. 1965. "The Policy Process in Congress:Passing the Higher Education Academic Facilities Act of1963." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin.

Rivlin, Alice. 1969. Toward a Long-Range Plan for FederalFinancial Support of Higher Education: A Report to the Presi-dent. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, andWelfare.

Rose, Arnold. 1955. "Voluntary Associations under Conditionsof Competition and Conflict." Social Forces 34(2): 159-63.


t1395

Rosenzweig, Robert. 1965. "Education Lobbies and Federal Leg-islation." In Challenge and Change in American Educdtion,edited by Seymour H . Berkeley, Cal.: McCutchan.

Salisbury, Robert H. 1969 "An Exchange Theory of InterestGro4ps." Midwest Jou l of Political Science'13(1): 1-32.

1984. "Interest Representation: The Dominance of Insti-tutions." American Political Science Review 78(1): 64-76.

Saunders, Charles B., Jr. 1976. "The Student,Aid Merry-Go-Round." Change 8(7): 44-45.

. 21 March 1978. Testimony before the Committee on Gov-ernmental Affairs. U.S. Congress, House of Reprevtatives.

---. 1981. "The Role of the National AssociatiOni" NewDirections for Institutional Advancement (12): 49-58.

1983. "Reshaping Federal Aid to Higher Education." InThe Crisis in Higher. Education, edited by Joseph Froomkin.New York: The Academy of Political Science.

Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People.Nevi York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Schumpeier, Joseph. 1934. Theory ofEconomic Development.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

1947. "The Creative Response in Economic History."Schuster, Jack H. 1982. "Out of the Frying Pan: The Politics of

Education in a New Era." Phi Delta Kappan 63(9): 583-91.

Scully, Malcolm G. December 1979. "Michigan Center, 'Gang ofSix' to Study Performance of Eight educational Associations."Chronicle of Higher Education 19(15): 9-1(1.

Semas, Philip-W. 30 October 1972. "Few Changes Thus Far inHigher Education's Washington 'Umbrella.; " Chronicle ofHigher Education 7(6): 3.

Sills, David L. 1968. "Voluntary Associations: SociologicalAspects." In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sci-ences, vol. 16, edited by David L. Sills. New York: Macmillan/Free Press.

Smelser, Neil J. 1963. "Mechanisms for Change and Adjustmentsto Change." In Industrialization and Society, edited by WilbertE. Moore and Bert F. Hoselitz. Paris: UNESCO.

Somit, Albert, and Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1964. American PoliticalScience: A Profile of a Discipline. New. York: Atherton Press.

Stanfield, Rochelle L. 1 April 1978. "The Taxpayers' Revolt: PartIIEducation Aid for Everybody?" National Journal 10(13):

509-14.17 July 1982: "Student Aid Lobby Learns New Tricks to

Fight Reagan's Spending Cutbacks." National Journal 14(29):

1261-64.

96

1.1.4

Stewart,.Donald M. Forthcoming. Politics of Higher Education:A Study of the American Council on Education. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Stinchcombe, Arthur. 1965. "Social Structure and Organiza-lions." In Handbook of Organizations, edited by James G.March. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Sundquist, James L. 1968. Politics and Policy: The Eisenhower,-Kennedy; and Johnson Years. Washington, D.C.: BrookingsInstitution.

Truman, David B. 1955. The Governmental Process. New York:Knopf.

Tuttle, William M., Jr. 1970. "Higher Education and the FederalGovernment: The Triumph, 1942,1945." The Record 71(3):485-99.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. 17 October 1979. Edu-cation Amendmenfs'of 1980, H.R. 520: 96th Congress, 1st Ses-sion. ,

Walker, Jack L. 1983. "The Origins and Maintenance of InterestGroups in America." The American Political Science Review77(2): 390 -405.

Warren, Roland L.,,1967. "The Interorganizational Field as aFocus for Investigation." Administrative Science Quarterly2(3): 396-419.

Watkins, Beverly. 10 July 1978. "American Council to Reorga-nize." Chronicle of Higher Education 16(18): 5.

Wilson, G. 1981. interest Groups in the United States. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, James Q. 1973. Political Organization. New York: BasicBooks. '

Wilson, John T. 1982. Higher Education and the WashingtonScene: 1982. Chicago: university of Chicago Press.

Wolanin, Thomas. October 1976. "The National Higher Educa-tion Associations: Political Resources and Style." Phi DeltaKappan 58(2): 181-84.


INDEX

AAAC (see Association of American Colleges)AACJC (see American Assdiation Oftommunity and Junior

Colleges)AAMC (see Association of American Medical Colleges)AASCU (see American Association of State Colleges and

Universities)AAU (see Association of AmericatfUniversities)AAUP (see American Assbciation of University Professors)Academic Collective Bargaining Service, 84

--Accreditation; 3 -'Accreditation associations, 13ACE (see Anierican Council on Education)ACHE (see Action Committee for Higher Education)ACPAR (see Association Counill for Policy Analysis and

'Research)Action Committee for Higher Education (ACHE), 82, 85Adult education: AACJC support, 22AERA (see American Educational Research Association)AFL-CIO, 44AFT (see American Federation of Teachers)Age biscrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 53Agricultural education:.NASULGC position, 18Aid to Developing Institutions, 38American Association of Community and Junior Colleges

(AACJC)

ACademic Collective Bargaining Service, 84"Big Six," xixcommunity activity support, 62conflict with AASCU/NASULGC, 41description; 21-22 ,

dues, 76reprimand, 42

American Association of State Colleges and Universities(AASCU)

Academic Collective Bargaining Service, 84alliance with AACJC, 21"Big Six," xix, 15community activity support, 62conflict with AACJC, 41description, 19-20, 75lead agency responsibility, 84position on BEOGs, 73


116

representation of "have'nots," 55, 56tax credit split with AAC, 19

American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 13, 40American Bar Association, 23American Council on Education (ACE)

AACIC reprimand, 42Ac clettAffairs, 60ACPAR operation, 84-85"

Affairs, 60"Big Six," xix, 15Business-Higher Education Forum, S7Commission on Federal Relations, 40-41commitment to state governqient relations, 69Coordinating Committee,.61coordinator role, 49, 51, 60, 76-78, 85-86description, 16-17distribution of material benefits, 10dues, 76Division of External Relations, 69.Division of Governmental Relations, 58-59, 69Division of Institutional Relations, 69Division of International Relations, 69Division of Policy Analysis, 69, 85government relations, 29-30;51, 57-59Heyns presidency, 57-62Higher Education and National Affairs, xxinstitutional interest fairness, 4Leadership Development, 60organizing, 29Peltason presidency, 68-69Policy Analysis Service,59representation of community-wide interests, 35, 75

representation.of "haves"-and "have nots," 56reorganization,.69role on construction loans, 33role on President's Committee, 30role or .eauthorization Act, 73Secretariat; 26, 40, 42, 61-62, 86size, 21stated goals, 10-11statement on institutional aid, 38

.study on goals, 77-78support by AAC, 45

106

117

support for COFHE report; 66support for Department of Education, 72support for Emergency Committee, 44Women in Higher Education, 60work with AASCU, 20

American Educational Research Association (AERA), 13American Federation of Teachers (AFT), 70, 71ArneriCan Medical Association, 23American Political Science Association, 24'

American Sociological Association, 13Asiociated Colleges.of the Midwest, 23-24Association council for Policy Analysis and Research (ACPAR),

83`85-Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment

Stations, 18Association of American Colleges (AAC)

. Academic Collective Bargaining Service, 84.affiliation with ACE, 45"Big Six, " -xix, 15desCription, 19politicization4NAICU, 63-65position on federal aid, 34, 38, 44-45.representation of "have nots," 56representation of specialized interests, 55representation on ACE board-, 17satellite associations, 23

Association of American Law§chools, 23AssociatiA of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), 23Association of American Universities (AAU)

"Big Six," xix,change in membership incentives, 11,Council on Federal Relations established, 63description, 22dues, 76government relations, 65

' institutionally tied, 13lead agency responsibility, 84representation of "haves," 55, 56satellite associations, 23support for COFHE report, 66

Associations"Big Six," or core, xix, xx, 14-15, 24, 86classification, 13-14, 24

Associations in Action' .101

4

cooperation with federal decisiop making, 28decision making, 4development, xixxx:division of tasks, 84-86dues, 76 ,

federal relations offices, 83-84formation, 5-7image,.67-69;-74location in Washington, D.C., 5material benefits, 10membership, 1-4, 7.12norms/consensus, 39-42, 87outlook, 89-90outreach of interests, 8'7."peripheral lobbies," 24purposive benefits, 10-11relationship to social/political order, 2satellite lobbies, 22-24teaching activities, 1transition period, 42-47

Atwell (Robert), 69

B

Bailey (Stephen K.), 58Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOGs), 51, 72 -74'Benefits: distribution of, 10BEOGs (see Basic Educational Opportunity Grants)"Big Six" associations, xix, xx, 10, 14715, 25, 34, 40, 58, 79; 83-86Black colleges

NASULGC position; 18satellite associatioftembership, 23

Boyer (Ernest), 80Brademas (John), 50, 67"Brethren, The," 62, 86-87BrewSter (Kingman), 74 -

Brookings Institution,4, 39, 80Building programs, 24,

CCarlson (Edgar), 65Carter Administration, 70, 71, 79, 81CASE (see Council for the Advancement and Support of

Education) .

102

119

C.

.v a

Categorical aid programs, 24, 38Catholic colleges (see Church related colleges)CGS (see Council of Graduate Schools)Change Magazine, xxChief executives: need to meet, 86 -Chronicle of Higher Education, xiChurch related 'Colleges

AAC representatibn, 19,opposition to federal aid; 3405, 63.representation (If "have nots," 56 ,

satellite association members, 23CISME (see consortium for International Cooperation in Higher

Education)Civil Rights Act of 1964, 53Clark (Joseph S.), 32-33, 42Classification schemes, 13-16, 24'Coalition building/action, 35,85'Coalition of Independent University Stildents ((bIUS), 67COFHE (See Consortium on Financing Higher Education)COIUS (see Coalition of Independent University Studetits)

'College Housing Loan Program, 72College presidents

benefits of AAU membership, 11concern over regulation, 52-53, 74dissent on AAC position, 45expertise in NASULGC, 18Gang of Six (Gang of Ten), 76,77role in ACE policy - making, 40role in fed&lpolicia-making, 31-32, 64-65view or associations, 77-78

College Service Bureau, 23College Work Study programs, 72Commtinitycolleges: AACJC repregentation, 21Community service: AACJC support, 22Complexity theory (association formation), 5-6Congress (see also Federal relations; "House" and "Senate"

headings), 25, 32, 50Consensus, 40-41, 59Consortia, 23Consortium for International Cooperation in Higher Education

(CICHE), 85Consortium on Financing of Higher Education (COFHE1, 66Constitutional law, 27

S

0

Assotiations in Action 103

" j20

4

Construction loans, 24, 32-33, 37Cooperatiie mechanisms: government/associations, 39-41"Core lobbies" (see "Big Six")Cosand (Joseph), 76Council for the Advancement and Support of (CASE),

§5

Council fOr the Advancement of Private Independent Four-YearInstinitions, 23

1

Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), 13, 23Council of Protestant Colleges and Universities, 23, 40

D

De Toqueville: view of associationDemocratic expression, 2-4Department of Education, 26, 71-72, 79, 80, 81Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 25 30, 43Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2Department of Labor, 43Developing institutions: federal aid, 38Disturbance theory (association formation), 5-6Division of labor, 85-86 -

Doctoral degrees: awarded in NASULGC institutions, 18Drucker (Peter), 80Dues, 76

E-ECS (see Education Commission of the States)Education Amendments of 1972, 25, 26, 37, 50,-1, 52, 67Education Amendments of 1976, 67, 79Education Amendments of 198072-74;79, 81Education Commission of the States (ECS),.5 .

Education Funding Committee), 85Educational opportunity grants, 38EducationalRecord, 83 fJ

Elementary.secondary education Iodations, 28, 35Elementary secondary education interests',171Emergency Committee for Full Funding o, Education, 36, 43-44,

46, 85

Environmental Protection Agency, 53Equal educational opportunity, 28, 37Equal Employment Opportunity Act 01964, 38, 53Equal Pay feet of .1963, 53Entrepreneurial theory (association fOrmation), 5, 7Executive Order 11246, 53

104

121.

EFaculty organizations, 13Family Educational Rightvand Privacy Act of 1974, 53Federal aid (see also Student Financial Aid), 20, 31-34, 37-39,

43-47Federal government

grants, 18relationship to, xixrole in higher education, 26, 28-32, 80-82

Federal legislation (see also specific acts), 25-26"Federal Programs for Higher Education: Needed Next Steps"

(ACE), 38-Federal regulation, 23, 26, 5f-53, 74Federal relations (see also Lobbying)

ACE Commission, 40-41AAU role, 65buildup, 51 83-86development in 1970s, 56-62divisionof labor, 85improved image, 73

Federation of State Associations of Independent Colleges andUniversities (FSAICU), 64-65

FinanCial aid (see Student financial aid)First Amendment, 27Ford (William), 70, 73Ford Administration, 54Ford Foundation, 79Fourth Amendment, 27"Free rider" problem, 8FSAICU (see Federation of State Associations of Independent

Colleges and Universities)Fulbright program (ACE), 69

G

G.I. Bill of 1944, 30, 52"Gang of Six" ("Gang of Ten"), 76-78Glazer (Nathan), 80Government relations (see Federal relations)Governmental Relations Luncheon Group, 39-40Graduate study

AACJC position, 21, 62AAU position, 22, 62ACE position, 62


122105

NASULGC position, 1B, 62special interest associations, 23

Grant proposal advisors, 24Green (Edith), 50Guaranteed Student Loan Program, 81

HHandicapped: aid to, 53Hatch (Orrin), 82Haves ancLhave nots, 88-8HENA (see Higher .Eductition and National Affairs)Heritage Foundation, 80Heyns (Roger), 51, 57-62, 68, 84Hicks (Weimer), 64Higher education

centraliiationidecentralization,28-29Congressional action, 25federal role, 26, 23-32financial problems, 47, 49fragmentation, 13-14growth in -1966s, 37grOwth patterns/interests, 6haves and have nots, 5446, 88-89"fiberal'consensus," 26, 79-80mission, 34national defense role, 27state primacy, 27

Higher Education Act of 1965, 25, 26, 37, 38, 42, 50"Higher Education Agendas," 83Higher Education Amendments-of 1976, 67Meier Education and National Affairs (HENA), xxHigher Education Reauthorization Act of 1980, 72-75, 88Higher Educational Facilities Act of 1963, 25, 37, 63Hill (Lister), 30,Honey (John C.), 51Honey-Crowley Report, 51, 59, 67Hook (Sidney), 80House Education and Labor CoMmittee, 25, 73, 82House Government Operations Committee, 84House of Representatives, 25, 26; 33, 43, 50House Rules Committee, 63House Special Subcommittee on Education, 25, 50House Subcommittee on Postsecondary EduCation, 25, 73

106

'How-to" pamphlets! student aid lobbying, 82Howe (Harold), 80

IIndependent sector (see National Association of Independent

Colleges and Universities; Private sector)Institutional aid, 39, 50Institutional autonomy: role of associations, 3Institutional types; 6Institutionally tied associations, 13, 15International education

AASCIrpositioni 20NASULGC position, 18

"iron Law of Oligarchy," 3-4

JJohnson Administration, 35, 38, 43Junior colleges:'AACJC representation, 21

KKemp (Jack), 82Kennedy AdMinistration, 37, 43Kerr (Clark), 80Kidd (Charles),,63

L

Land-grant institutions, 18"Lead agency" concept, 84-85Leadership, 9, 11-12Learned societies, 1, 4, 13, 24Legislation

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 53Civil Rights Act Or1964, 53Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1964, 38, 53Equal Pay Act of 1963, 53Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 53 .

Higher Education Act of 1965, 25, 26, 37, 38, 42, 50Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1980, 72- 75,88Higher Educational Facilities Act of 1964, 25, 37, 63Middle Income Student Assistance Act of 1978, 70- 71,.79.Morrill Act of 1862, 29National Defense Act of 1916, 29


National Defense Education Act of.195$ (NDEA), 25, 30,37

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 53Liberal arts

AAC representation, 19, 65need for spacial representation, 45

"Liberal consensus" ofhigher education, 26, 7940Librarians, 25Libraries: federal aid, 38Lobbying (see also Federal relations)

activist perspective, 35-36coalitions, 44origins, 27pragmittic realism, 35proposal by Clark, 32 -33reluctance toward, xixsuccess in student aid, 82traditional approach, 34-35

MMadisoh (James): views of factionalism, 3,,Major associations (see "Big Six")Mandate for Leadership: Policy Management in a Con,se.gative

Administration, 81

Membership in associationscollective action motives, 7-8cost, 76material incentives, 10

.necessity, 75questions of benefits, 7perception of efficacy, 9pluralistic motives, 7-9purposive incentives, 10-11solidary incentives, 11-12tangible private benefits, 9theoretical motives, 14, 7-10

Middle Income Student Assistance Act of 1978, 70-71, 79Military training, 29, 84 ,

Monitoring hearings, 85Morrill Act of 1862, 29Morse (John), 40, 58Morse (Wayne), 43 a

Morse Group, 40-41

108

125

..

Moynihan (Daniel), 67, 70

NACUBO (see National Associatiotiqtalle-Td and-University _Business Officers)

NAICU (see National Association of Independent Colleges andUniversities)

NASULGC (see National Association of State Universities andLand-Grant Colleges)

.National Association of Admissions'tfficers, 24 -National Association of College and University Business Officers

(NACUBO), 58National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities

(NAICU)"Big Six," xix, 15, 58establishment,, 65 -66formation as lobbying group, 46, 75lead agency responsibility: taxes, 84representation of "haves" and "have nots," 56-satellite associations, 23'Secretariat, 66 ,

National Association of State Universities, 18-National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant

Colleges (NASULGC)alliance with AACJC, 21"Big Six," xix; 15community activity support, 62conflict with AACJC, 41deicription, 17-18'lead agency responsibility:-energy, 84longevity, 26origins, 29position on undergraduate scholarships, 41representation of "haves," 56representation on ACE board, 17satellite associations, 23similarity-to AASCU, 20tax credit split with AAC, 19

National Catholic Educational Association, 23National Center for Higher EducatiOn, 15, 26, 78, 89

'National Commission on Accreditation, 40National Council for IndependentColleges and Universities

(NCICU), 65National defense, 27, 30, 37

\ Associations in Action 109

126

National Defense Act of 1916, 29National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA), 25, 30, 37National Education Association (NEA), 44, 59, 70, 71, 72

. National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, 72National Student Association (NSA), 13;67

----NationalStuslent.EdUcation Fund, 67National Student Lobby, 67NCICU (see National Council for Independent Colleges and Uni-

versities)NDEA (see National Defense Education Act of 1958)NEA (seeNational Education Association)New York Times, 79Nixon Administration, 35,, 43, 49, 54Norms, 41-42, 87-88NSA (seeational Student Association)

0Occupational groups24`Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 53Office of Education, 24, 25, 46, 41, 43Ohio State University, 23Oligarchy: presence in associations, 3--4Organizational life cycles, 5Ostar (Allan), 20

PPackwood (Robert), 70Part -time students, 21Peer review; grant proposals, 3Pell_(Claiborne), 25, 50, 67, 74Pell grants, 20,70, 81, -88Peltason (Jack), 68-69, 71, 77"Peripheral lobbies," 24Polley analysis, 59, 69Policy formation, 24-28Political benefits of membership, 10Political factors(see also Lobbying)

distribution of information9,10perspectives of higher education, 33-36types of programs/issues, 24-25

Powell (Adam Clayton), 25Presidential Views of Higher Education's National Institutional

Membership Associations, 77

110

127

Presidents (see College presidents)"President's club" (AAU), 22President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School;

30;31,42Private sector (see also National Association of Independent Col-

leges and Universities)federal aid, 37, 53 -55politicization, 63-67position on construction Joans, 32revenues, 27

Professional associations, 23Professional education, 23Protestant colleges (see Church related colleges)Public sector (see also American Association of Community and

Junioi Colleges; American Association of State Colleges andUniversities; National Association of State Universities andLand-Giant Colleges)

community changes and attitudes, 62position on BEOGs, 72-73position on construction loans, 32

Public/private conflict: student aid, 53, 72 -73, 88Public/private nondiscrimination, 28, 29

Quie (Albert), 50

RReagan Administration, 26, 28, 79-82, 85Regional consortia, 23Research

AACJC.position, 21AAU position, 22NASULGC position, 18special interest associations, 23

Research associations, 13Research universities: AAU role, 11Reserve'Officers Training Corps, 29Reward systems, 4Richardson (Elliott), 30 .

S

Saunders (Charles B.), 58, 83Secretariat (see American Council on Education/Secretariat)


12$

Segregation, 37Senate, 25Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 84Servicemen's Opportunity College, 84Small colleges (see also Association of American Colleges;

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universi-ties), 66

Special Committee or Education, 25Special interest associations,.22Special task associations, 13'Special task groups, 24Sputnik, 30State colleges and universities (see American Assotiation of State

Colleges and Universities; Public sector)Stateprimacy, 27State Student Incentive Grants, 73State systems, 23State Universities Association, 18State University of New York, 23Stated goals, 10-11Student associations, 67Student financial aid

AACJC positiOn, 21AASCU position, 20BEOGs, 51, 72-74government regulation, 51-53middle income students, 70-71origins, 30political 'factors, 24-25problems of distribution, 53-56public/private differences, 53, 72-73, 88Reagan Administration cuts, 81-82undergraduat&scholarships, 37, 38versus institutional aid, 50-52

Student organizations, 13"Subgovernments," 25Sullivan (Richard IL), 451Sullivan Report, 43-46Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 73

TTax credits, 19, 70Teacher Corps, 38

112

Technical training: AACJC support, 22Title IV, 46'Trends for future, 88-90Truman (David), 66"Tuesday Luncheon Club," 39, 86Tuition

AACJC position, 21AASCU position, 20public-private differential, 53

Typology &associations, 13-15

U

Umbrella organizations, 14, 15, 17, 65-66Undergraduate degrees: from AASCU institutions, 20University of Michigan, 76Urban institutions, 18 -

V

Vietnam War, 43Vocational education: AACJC support, 22Voluntary associations: definitions and membership, 1-3

Washington, D.C.: association headquarters, 5Washington Higher Education Secretariat (see,American Council

on Edu,cation/Secretariat)Washington,P0t, 70, 8Q .Wilson (Logan), 17, 57, 58

aociations in Action 113

130

,

ASHE -ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTS

'Stiwting in 1983, the Aisociation for the Study of Higher Educationasstimed cosponiorship of the Higher Education Reports with the ERIC.Clearinghouse on Higher Education. For the previous 11 years, ERIC andthe American Association for Higher Education prepared and publishedthe reports. .

Each reportfis the definitive analysis of a tough higher education prob-.lem, based on a thorough research of pertinent literature and institutionalexperiences. Report topics, identified by a national survey, are written bynested practitioneri and scholars with prepublication manuscript reviewsby experts.

Eight monographs (10 monographs before 1985) in the ASHE-ERICHigher Education Report series are published each year, available indi-vidually or by subscription. SubScription to eight issues is $55 regular; $40for members of AERA, AAHE and AIR: S35 for members of ASHE.(Add $7.50 outside the United States.)

Prices fOr single copies, including 4th class postage and handling, are' $7.50 regular and $6.00 for members of AERA, AAHE, AIR, and ASHE

`($6.50 regular and $5.00 for members for reports published before 1983).If faster -1st class poStage is desired for U.S. and Canadian orders, addS.75 for each publication ordered: overseas, add $4.50. ForyISA and,MasterCard payments, include card number, expiration date, and signa-ture. Orders under $25 must be prepaid. Bulk discounts are available onorders of 15 or more reports (not applicable to subscriptions). Order fromthe Publications Department. Association for the Study,of Higher Educa-tion. One Dupont Circle. Suite 630, Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 2915-2597. Write for a publication list of all Higher Education Reports stillavailable.

1985 Higher Education Reports now available -

1. Flexibility in Academic Staffing: Effective Policies and PracticesKenneth P. Mortimer, Marque Bagshaw, and Andrew T. Masland

2. Associations in Action: The Washington, D.C., Higher Education,Community

,Harland G. Bloland

1984 Higher Education Reports

1. Adult Learning: State Policies and Institutional PracticesK. Patricia Cross and Anne-Marie McCartan

2. Student Stress: Effects and SolutionsNeal A. Whitman, David C. Spendlove, and Claire H. Clark

3. Part-time Faculty: Higher Education at a CrossroadsJudith M. Gappa

4. Sex Discrimination Law in Higher Education: The Lessons of thePast Decade

J. Ralph Lindgren, Patti T. Ota, Perry A. Zirkel, and Nan VanGieson

5. Faculty Freedoms and Institutional Accountability: Interactions andConflicts

Steven G. °Istvan& and Barbara A. Lee


1R1

115

Q

6. The High-Technology Connection: Academic Industrial Cooperation

for Economic GrowthLynn G. Johnson

7. Employee Educational Programs: Implications for Industry and

Higher EducationSuzanne W. Morse

8. Academic Libraries: TheChanging Knowledge Centers of Colleges

and UniversitiesBarbara B. Moran

9. Futures Research and the Strategic Planning Process: Implications for

Higher EducationJames L. Morrison, William L. Renfro, and Wayne I. Boucher

10. Faculty Workload: Research, Theory, and InterpretationHarold E. Yuker

1983 Higher Education.Reports

I. The Path to Excellence: Quality Assurance in Higher EducationLqurence R. Marcus, Anita 0. Leone, and Edward D. Goldberg

2. Faculty Recruitment, Retention, and Fair Employment: Obligations

and OpportunitiesJohn S. Waggaman

3. Meeting the Challenges: Developing Faculty CareersMichael C. T. Brookes and Katherine L. German

4. Raising Academic Standards: A Guide to Learning Improvement

Ruth Talbott Keintig -_

5. Serving Learners at a Distance: A Guide to Program PracticesCharles E. Feasley

6. Competence, Admissions, and Articulation: Returning 11the Basics

in Higher EducationJean L. Preer

7. Public Service in Higher Education; Practices and Priorities

Patricia 11. Crosson

8. Academic Employment and Retrenchment: Judicial Review and

Administrative ActionRobert M. Hendrickson and Barbara A. Lee

9. Burnout: The New Academic DiseaseWinifred Albizu Melendez and Rafael M. de Guzman

10. Academic Workplace; New Demands, Heightened Tensions

Ann- E. Austin and Zelda F Gamson

1 16

132 111

Yes, I want to receive the other 7reports in the 1985 ASHE-ERICHigher Education Report: series atthe special discount price. I have justbought Report No. $7.50.Please deduct this amount from theprice of my subscription.

Type Subscription This Issue TOTAL

Regular 'S55.00 S7.50 S47.50

AERA, AIR.AAIjE member S40.00, S7.50 S32.50

ASHE member S35.00 $7.50 S27,50

"... A valuable series, especially for reviewing and

revising academic programs. These reports can saveus all from pitfalls and frustrations."

Mark H. Curtis, former PresidentAssociation of American Colleges

Dear Librarian,I have just finished reading one of the -1985ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports (ISSN'0884-0040). I found it outstanding and stronglyrecommend that ow institution subscribe tothe series. At $55.00 for 8 issues, it is a bargain.

Signed,

Name

Title

ASI-Egig_FAcr .

Association for the Study of Higher EducationThe George Washington,UniversityOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Dept. 51Washington, D.C. 20035Phone: (202) 296-2597

133

ORDER FORM

Association for the Study ofHigherlducation

-One puponi Circle, Sulti 830Washington, D.C. 20036Phone: (202) 296-2597

Name

Position

inst /Address

Day Phone

Signature

Check enclosed (payable to ASHE) --

0 Purchase order intuited

Charge my VISA account

Exp. date

Charge my MasterCard account

Exp. date

ORDER FORM

No.

1984 Solos 555.00

1985 Serit4S55 00

_Please place astanding Orders) for this

institution 7, 555.00/yr.

TOTAL DUE.

Amount

Name

Position

Inst 'Address

Day Phone

Signature

Check enclosed (payable to ASHE)

Porchase order attached

: FROM

!

\ ,

., Place

Stamp .

Here

Association for the Study of Higher EducaticinAttention: Subscription DepartfnentOne DOpont Circle, Suite 630Washington;DC 20036

FROM Place

Stamp

Here

ATTN: Serial Acquisitions DeptThetibrary

134

..4

.5

HARLAND G. BLOLAND is professor of higher education atthe University of Miami. He has had a long-term interest inhigher education associations and has published articles,Books, and monographs on the role of associations in the

U.S. system, on association structure and organization, on

change in learned societies, and onassociation conventionbehavior. He is organization advisor for State and Regional'Research Associations Special Interest Group of the Amer-

ican Educational Research Association. Bloland's presentresearch interests are in organizations and culture,interpretive sociologies, and the politics ofhigher educa-tion. He is currently engaged in a study of state and

regional learned societies.

ISBN 0- 913317 -21-7»$7.50

135