The Secretary of Controversy

By Ezra Bowen.

Barely a month ago, big (6 ft. 2 in.), bluff William Bennett looked upon his early works as Secretary of Education and declared them good. "I have more affinity with the views of the American people than do most of my academic colleagues," he announced. "I think I am in the mainstream of American thinking."

If so, then it is a turbulent mainstream, and at times Bennett has seemed in need of a pilot. Since taking office Feb. 6, he has been a forceful exponent of quality and responsibility in education. His style, however, has been politically maladroit, offending educators and laymen alike, while threatening their pocketbooks. The new Secretary has come down hard for the Administration's plan to cut about $2.3 billion from student loans, grants and other higher-education aid for fiscal 1986. This, he said, might "require for some students divestiture of certain sorts--stereo divestiture, automobile divestiture, three-weeks-at-the-beach divestiture."

He has charged that because of mismanagement by a number of colleges "some people are getting ripped off " in the education they are getting for their money. He later blasted some colleges for graduating almost "any warm body" and for neglecting traditional humanities-centered curriculums in favor of career packaging.

Bennett has also jumped into some hot issues in elementary and secondary education, notably when he advocated vouchers that dissatisfied public school parents could use to send their children to different schools, either public or private. He appointed two assistants, Eileen Marie Gardner of the right- wing Heritage Foundation and Conservative Educator Lawrence Uzzell; both opposed major federal education programs, with Gardner against special aid for the handicapped. When Republican Lowell Weicker of the Senate Appropriations Committee threatened to block the salaries for Gardner and Uzzell, Bennett was forced to accept their resignations.

Then, speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, Bennett suggested that families with incomes above $60,000 and several children to put through college should "maybe do your family planning a little better or find other means" besides federal loans. His office quickly explained that he had meant "family financial planning."

All of which is not what people expected when Bennett arrived in the job with his humanist background, top-drawer intellect and impeccable scholarly credentials: B.A. from Williams College, Ph.D. from the University of Texas, a law degree from Harvard and a stint as chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. According to Terry Hartle, education specialist for the American Enterprise Institute, when Bennett's posting was announced, it was "greeted with a sigh of relief by the educational community, who feared a hatchet man might be appointed." But the community soon learned that relief would not be spelled B-E-N-N-E-T-T.

Students and parents were outraged at what they took to be his picture of federal aid as a boondoggle for some affluent families. The fact is that of the 5.3 million higher-education students who received aid, 82% are from families earning less than $36,000 per year. New York University President John Brademas, who during 22 years as a Democratic Congressman fought for federal-aid programs, said the result of the cuts would be "the creation of a two-tier system of higher education in our country, with independent universities for the rich, and state or municipal colleges for everyone else."

Many people were disturbed at the Administration's efforts to reverse the Government's long-term commitment to federal help for education. "If you are not a supporter of a federal role," said Robert Atwell, president of the American Council on Education, "you should not be in that job." Republican Senator Robert Stafford of Vermont, who chairs the Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities, has hammered at the Administration's budget. Last week the Senate approved Stafford's amendment, which reduces the cuts to $200 million, with no new limits on individual aid beyond the $60,000 income cap referred to in Bennett's family-planning gaffe.

There was also anger in Congress at Bennett's habit of seeming to dictate legislation rather than negotiating it. Some members expect the Secretary to learn the ropes quickly, but Democrat Augustus Hawkins, chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, says, "I would give him a failing grade so far. He has very few defenders in Congress."

Elsewhere around the country, however, and even in Washington, a number of thoughtful people concede that some of the things the Secretary has been saying make good sense. "Bennett has drawn attention to the issues of higher education," says Joseph Duffey, chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "The questions of what a society can afford in higher education and the current maldistribution of federal aid should be addressed." Many faculty members at schools like George Washington University, where Bennett delivered a commencement address last week, are delighted at his call for renewed emphasis on history, classic studies and languages. And as for "rip- offs," Gregory Moore, president of the United States Student Association, confirms that "the majority of students don't see the quality of higher education going up as fast as the cost."

Though Bennett is heartened by such support, and by some private calls of approval from college presidents, he makes no bones about whom he really cares to please. "I work for Ronald Reagan, who was resoundingly elected by the American people," Bennett says, adding, "Ronald Reagan is far more in touch with what the American people want in education than the educational establishment." Nor is there any doubt in Bennett's mind that the boss is pleased. Early on, the Secretary was bolstered by a message from Reagan. "So far, I have only one complaint," the President said. "I just wish you would stop mincing your words."

With reporting by Patricia Delaney/Washington