That Suffocating Federal Help

Never, since it was founded in 1844 by free-will Baptists, has fiercely independent Hillsdale College in southern Michigan accepted a cent from the federal, state or local government. This fall, nonetheless, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare informed Hillsdale that even if only one of the college's 1,100 students receives a federal grant, the entire college is considered a "recipient institution." Hillsdale trustees were outraged; they called the federal regulations "immoral and illegal" violations of the school's "inalienable rights of freedom," and announced that the college would try to find legal ways to resist. Hillsdale President George Roche III also wants to ward off federal encroachment: "That's a Pandora's box we have no wish to open."

Hillsdale's reaction is only one example of the growing resentment on campuses against a smothering blanket of complex and often unpractical federal rules and regulations. They flow from a host of federal programs, ranging from environmental protection and unemployment insurance to affirmative action (which requires a college to prove that it is taking steps to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex or race). Indeed, after a survey of affirmative-action programs at 132 schools, the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education declared that they are "confused, even chaotic," full of contradictory guidelines, and enforced by agencies that are often "feuding with each other." The federal regulations have further threatened the survival of many colleges that are already in perilous financial condition; they simply cannot afford the paper work and restrictions that each new program entails. Some of the more onerous examples:

> When Dartmouth recently decided to hire a new dean, it followed the federal regulations and advertised in national publications. The college was inundated by 500 applications; it had to set up evaluation committees and underwrite four trips across the country to interview candidates. The result: Dartmouth promoted its own dean of freshmen.

> Last August HEW required the University of Washington to present statistical information about its 15,000 staff and faculty members in a new computerized format. The cost of this change: $50,000. The cost of complying with federal requirements in the past two years, says University Vice President Philip Cartwright, runs "into hundreds of thousands of dollars."

> Jim Barratt, Oregon State's athletic director, was appalled by the red tape and "huge economic cost" of meeting new rules prohibiting sex discrimination. Barratt decided on a dramatic form of protest: he resigned. Ironically, he was a strong advocate of women's participation in sports.

> Brigham Young University, a Mormon institution, has also challenged the legality of part of Title IX. President Dallin Oaks charges that the regulations prohibiting different rules for men and women "infringe on religious freedom and other constitutional rights." Brigham Young, he says, will continue to enforce its own rules on students' dress and appearance. (Women cannot wear jeans; men's hair must be cut neatly above the ears.) Says Oaks: "We believe that differences in dress and grooming of men and women are proper expressions of God-given difference in the sexes."

Still, many colleges might more willingly accept the growing federal presence if it were not so expensive. A study of six colleges by the American Council on Education has found that the cost of complying with federal programs has multiplied from ten to 20 times in the past decade. The costs at one medium-sized private college soared from $2,000 to $166,000; at a large public university, from $438,470 to $1.3 million.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.