Print
Good news and bad from Capitol Hill
In his last state of the union address, President Clinton laid out a future plan for education that shows why he will go down in history as "the real Education President," says AFT president Sandra Feldman. The most ambitious part of that vision was a proposal, released just prior to the speech, that would pump $30 billion into the pockets of millions of American families to help make college more affordable. Called the College Opportunity Tax Cut, the program would build on the 1997 Lifetime Learning tax credit, providing more tax credits worth up to $10,000 per student, for eligible families earning less than $100,000 per year. Even families with incomes of between $100,000 and $120,000 would get some partial benefit. The tax credits could be used for undergraduate and/or graduate study or for job-related training.
The president also proposed a package of increases to existing programs that would cost another $1 billion. These would:
- Increase the maximum Pell grant in 2001 from $3,300 to $3,500 and boost the $631 million budget of the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program by $60 million.
- Increase the College Work-Study program to benefit 1 million students and add funds to GEAR UP, the program targeted to middle school children from low-income families.
- Extend tax breaks to businesses for employer-provided tuition assistance and extend the length of time borrowers can deduct the interest they pay on student loans.
Last year, a similar education tax credit program won bipartisan support in Congress, but not enough votes to pass.
Reflecting on the opportunities the aid system had afforded him, Clinton said, "I had the help of scholarships, loans and jobs. If I hadn't had that help, there's no way in the world I'd be standing here today."
Court limits federal lawsuits
Public college faculty may not use the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to sue their employer for discriminating against them on the basis of age, the Supreme Court ruled in January. It was the first of several decisions this winter that legal experts say are signaling a new turn toward judicial activism. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices decided that the 11th Amendment, which makes states immune from federal lawsuits, takes precedence over laws created to enforce citizens' rights under the 14th Amendment, which states that all citizens are protected equally by the laws of the United States.The case was brought by 36 faculty at two public universities in Florida, who because of their age, were affected by salary formulas that did not take into account many years of service.
Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that in passing the ADEA, Congress exceeded its authority, for the Constitution does not stipulate that age is a classification--like race, for example--that needs special protection. Legal experts noted that people with disabilities are another classification not included in the Constitution, thereby shedding doubt on the High Court's willingness to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On the basis of this decision, the Supreme Court sent back to a U.S. appeals court five cases dealing with the ADEA and a sixth case of gender bias brought under the Equal Pay Act. The cases all involved colleges and universities; the gender bias case was against the State University of New York at New Paltz.
