Scribd
Upload
52 views

Description: Tags: Emmert

Mark Emmert, President of the University of Washington, testified before the National Commission on the Future of Higher Education. He argued that the United States needs to dramatically reinvest in higher education through a partnership between the federal government, states, and universities. He noted that throughout history, major federal investments in higher education such as the Morrill Act, GI Bill, and Higher Education Act led the US to have the best university system in the world, but that advantage is now at risk without renewed support. Emmert urged the Commission to recommend a national strategy to ensure continued investment in higher education to develop innovative ideas and an educated workforce for the future.

Uploaded by

anon-852375
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
52 views

Description: Tags: Emmert

Mark Emmert, President of the University of Washington, testified before the National Commission on the Future of Higher Education. He argued that the United States needs to dramatically reinvest in higher education through a partnership between the federal government, states, and universities. He noted that throughout history, major federal investments in higher education such as the Morrill Act, GI Bill, and Higher Education Act led the US to have the best university system in the world, but that advantage is now at risk without renewed support. Emmert urged the Commission to recommend a national strategy to ensure continued investment in higher education to develop innovative ideas and an educated workforce for the future.

Uploaded by

anon-852375
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TESTIMONY OF

PRESIDENT MARK A. EMMERT, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

February 7, 2006
Seattle, Washington

Good morning. I am Mark Emmert, President of the University of Washington, a


university defined in part by the breadth and scope of its research mission and
its strong commitment to excellence and innovation in all areas of discovery and
learning.

Dr. Duderstadt, I want to thank all of you and Secretary Spellings for devoting so
much attention and energy to the vital issues facing our colleges and universities
as we look to the future. I know you have already spent substantial time
considering the questions outlined in the mandate of the Commission. Today, I
want to focus on what I believe is a critical choice facing our nation’s decision-
makers with respect to our higher education enterprise.

At decisive junctures in its history, our country has made a series of crucial
decisions that have led to the creation of the best system of higher education in
the world. Recently, however, our pre-eminence in higher education has been
put at risk. The long-standing investment in public higher education at the state
level has been under considerable strain, and we are seeing signs of such strain at
the federal level as well. All of this comes at a time when the competition from
other countries for the best minds and innovative ideas is on the rise.

Our nation needs to resolve to reinvest in higher education in new ways. We


need to invest in our nation’s people. They are the principal resource for the
future in a knowledge-dependent economy. Higher education produces two
things: smart people and innovative ideas, the key ingredients of the 21st-century
Emmert; Commission testimony, 02/07/05, page 2/4

global economy. We need a national strategy to ensure a rich and abundant


supply of both.1

One of the points in your charge considers the question of the cost of running
and attending our universities. This is a serious issue for individuals and
institutions alike. But I want to put the same question another way: What is the
cost of not undertaking a dramatic reinvestment in and reinforcement of higher
education in this country? If strong steps are not taken, future generations will
look back at this moment and wonder why our nation’s leaders stood by and
allowed the rest of the world to catch and surpass the best educational system in
the history of the world. We cannot let this happen.

Historically, the strength of the American higher education system has evolved
from a durable partnership among individuals, the states, and the federal
government. Numerous times in the past, the federal government has decided to
invest in the future of the country by investing in our nation’s colleges and
universities. Today, we regard these as turning points in the history of higher
education. In each instance, these landmark decisions grew out of pressing
national concerns but faced opposition and turmoil.

First, there was Thomas Jefferson’s deep belief that democracy required a well-
educated citizenry, a belief that led to our first public universities. Fifty years
later, Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences (1863) and
signed the Morrill Act (1862), which provided the land grants that allowed so
many universities to develop throughout the country. After World War II,
Franklin Roosevelt signed the G.I. Bill of Rights, guaranteeing millions of
servicemen the right to an education that they might never have had and
providing our first broadly educated workforce. Also at this time, the Vannevar
Bush report laid the foundation for the modern research university and the
immensely successful partnership between the federal government and the
nation’s research universities.

In 1957, Dwight Eisenhower answered the challenge of Sputnik with the


National Defense Education Act, and finally, in 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed the
Higher Education Act, which made college more affordable and accessible for
millions of students. These two landmark pieces of legislation -- passed forty
years ago -- were the last major initiatives affecting higher education in a
fundamental way. They gave rise to the generation of scientists and engineers
who populate our college and university faculties today, people like the
University of Washington’s Professor Donald Brownlee, who has led NASA’s

1
See Engineering Research and America’s Future: Meeting the Challenges of a Global Economy, The
National Academy of Engineering, 2005; and Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, The National Academy of Sciences, The National
Academy of Engineering, and The Institute of Medicine, 2005.

2
Emmert; Commission testimony, 02/07/05, page 3/4

Stardust project, which just returned to earth with its treasure of 4.5 billion-year-
old comet dust.

Each major step forward faced challenges and detractors. Jefferson’s call for a
more universally educated citizenry ran counter to the accepted notion of
education that was reserved for an elite class. The land grant act was bitterly
debated in Congress for years, because of opposition to the concept of providing
land for the purpose of expanding access. The G.I. Bill was viewed by opponents
as a subversive tool that would dilute the excellence of universities. And there
was great resistance to the Eisenhower and Johnson bills that opened the
pathway to opportunity for all members of our society. By then, questions of
race and equality led both sides to question whether these bills would enhance or
inhibit the efforts at integration that followed the Brown v. Board of Education
decision.

But eventually, in each instance, there was a recognition of the necessity of taking
dramatic steps forward, even in the face of unknown and potentially unintended
consequences. Even if there were questions about the role the federal
government should play, officials recognized that doing nothing was
unacceptable.

Today, we face a conflicting set of tensions regarding access and funding. We


need to provide more opportunity for students than ever before, because it is in
the national interest. So many of the jobs of the future depend upon advanced
learning, in ways that we do not yet even fully comprehend or can anticipate.
But if we know anything, we know that brilliant minds and innovation are the
capital of the future.

It is time to make a national decision to reinvest in higher education at both the


federal and the state levels, and to do so in a coordinated partnership among the
states, our universities, and the federal government. Each must commit to doing
its share. Together, we can solve the challenges we face.

At the outset I asked, “What is the cost of not doing anything?” The answer is:
“The cost of inaction is far too high.” We need investment and policy that will
allow us to compete around the world. Our global competitors recognize what
has made us successful, and they are in the chase. If they catch us in this new
global competition, it will take a monumental effort to recapture our position of
leadership. Not only our grandchildren, but our own children, will be asking
why we did not act when we had the chance.

A strong, innovative system of higher education is absolutely essential to the


future economy and security of our country. I, and my fellow presidents, stand
ready to engage in the discussion and the implementation of a set of solutions
that will result from your deliberations.

3
Emmert; Commission testimony, 02/07/05, page 4/4

Excellence in higher education is a promise our nation made to itself. We cannot


be the generation that breaks that promise. Thank you.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy