CAPSTONE
Cast Your Informed Vote
BY GWENDOLYN JORDAN DUNGY
Executive Director, NASPA
The New York Times featured an interesting op-ed piece by David Brooks (“How Voters Think,” January 18, 2008)
about how we make our voting decisions. Brooks discussed the various rationales for voting decisions: Some of our
decisions are based on emotions evoked by the appearance or presumed personality of the candidate, others are
motivated by political party, and still others are affected by what our peers think about the candidates.
The 2008 presidential election is critical for higher education as well as for the nation’s position in the international
community. Increasingly, coverage of the race has focused on
revitalizing our economy. I have yet to hear of the candidate
with the best interest of students at heart and the greatest
understanding of higher education.
During the early primaries, Brooks labeled the leading
candidates as a pastor, a businessman, a war hero, a beneficiary of the civil rights movement, the daughter of the
feminist movement, and a self-styled proletarian. As we study
the candidates and their positions, we must move beyond
looks, personality, and glib labels. We need to stay informed
by reading their statements on higher education, listening to
their responses to questions, and thinking about what it will
mean for higher education when one of these candidates
becomes president.
A sampling of candidate’s Web sites demonstrates that
education, particularly higher education, has taken the back
seat in the primary election process. Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.) does not include education as a separate “issue”
for discussion on his Web site. In a small mention, Barack
Obama (D-Ill.) promises to streamline the financial aid
process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a
box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to
be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application.
Mike Huckabee’s education agenda would include working
toward a clear distinction between the federal role in
assisting and empowering states and in usurping the right of
states to carry out education programs for their students, but
it is unclear what that means for colleges and universities.
According to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) Senate Web
site, she is committed to increasing opportunities for nontraditional students to enter and succeed in college and
strongly supports vocational and technical education.
While higher education may not be prominent in the
speeches and platforms of this year’s presidential candidates,
remember that the president appoints the secretary of educa-
tion to carry out the
presidential agenda
through education poli-
cies. Before working in
Washington, D.C., I
barely knew the name of
the secretary of educa-
tion, and did not think
that what happened in
the U.S. Department of
Education had much
affect on students or my
work. If you are under
that illusion today, you are not paying attention. Previous
secretaries have wanted to abolish the U.S. Department of
Education and have called for accountability long before the
current push in that direction.
Brooks notes that “As the months go on, emotions oscillate and voter preferences do, too. Voters listen to policy
proposals and infer character traits.” Emotions and personality aside, the bottom line is that we must conduct our due
diligence in the coming months to determine the best candidate for higher education, and we must ensure our vote
counts in November.
The 2008 presidential
election is critical for higher
education as well as for the
nation’s position in the
international community.
