Professor. Political Analyst. Pundit.

West to Princeton. Why Not West to Howard?

Much of the recent eruption of opinion and reporting on Cornel West and his decision to leave Harvard for Princeton left me wondering: What if one of the most high profile African American scholars in the world chose to leave an Ivy League school for an Historically Black Institution (HBI)? What if West would have left Harvard for Howard? Or, what if Howard, or a school like it, had even been mentioned in the where-will-West-end-up stories? The sad fact is, at no time during this period was an HBI discussed in any way as a potential stop for the West Express.

I suspect that there are numerous reasons why HBI's were not in the mix, some legitimate, some less so. The bottom line is probably money, which is fine by me. Unfortunately, the money issue does not portend well for HBI's in the marketplace for African American scholars. Rarely do African American scholars at White institutions consider moves to HBI's. Moreover, some of the most talented African American scholars are leaving HBI's at a rapid pace for administrative positions or faculty posts at majority institutions that will pay more, with more reasonable work loads. Many of those who haven't left yet are open to offers while newly minted African American Ph.D.'s are hesitant to enter the academy at an HBI. As a result, African American students are losing the opportunity to learn from some of the most talented minds in academia.

The pay issue is particularly important. As high profile African American scholars leave HBI's for White institutions, the "losing" school tends to sing the "we have no money to compete" blues. But how real is that? Well, if alumni giving rates (AGR) are the standard, then the answer is: very real. HBI's are in serious trouble in the competition for talented young African American scholars in particular. But what do alumni giving rates have to do with it? Alumni giving rates are a direct gauge of what graduates think of the institution from which they emerged. Consequently, the better a graduate feels, the more likely he, or she, is to give regularly. That provides more money to the institution, and puts it in a better position to recruit and retain talented African American faculty and better educate its students.

According to 2001 data from U.S. News and World Report, graduates of some of the largest and best known HBI's are poor givers compared to alumni of White institutions. According to data compiled by the Report, the rate of alumni giving at the top ten White institutions far outpace that of HBI's.

The top ten majority White institutions, in terms of its AGR are: Amherst (68%); Centre College (68%); Princeton University (66%); Williams College (60%); Carleton College (58%); Swarthmore College (56%); Bowdoin College (55%); Washington and Lee University (54%); Davidson College (53%), and Haverford (52%). Other notable majority institutions include: Yale (49%); Harvard (47%); Duke (45%); Brown (43%); University of Pennsylvania (40%); Wake Forest (38%); Stanford (37%); Brandeis (35%); Columbia (32%); Northwestern (29%); and University of Virginia (29%).

Conversely, the top ten HBI alumni giving rates are: Morris College (59%); Alabama A&M (43%); Clafflin College (37%); Morehouse College (26%); Fisk University (24%); Bethune-Cookman College (23%); Johnson C. Smith University (23%); Benedict College (19%); Philander Smith College (19%); and Livingstone College (16%). Notable HBI's include: Spelman (15%); Dillard (14%); Hampton (11%); Howard (9%); Lincoln of Pennsylvania (12%); Xavier (12%); St. Augustine's (12%); St. Paul's (12%); Barber-Scotia (10%); Albany State (11%); Coppin State (10%); and Delaware State (9%).

I can hear you from here: "But, White's have more money that Blacks." True. But, I'm not talking about the total amount of giving, but the rate of giving. And almost every graduate can give something. It's time for more African American graduates of HBI's to dig into their wallets and give something to the schools from which they graduated. I'm not asking for people to mortgage their homes, or put off buying the car of their dreams. I am asking them to consider the following: if you want high quality African American scholars on the faculty of your alma mater when your child gets there, then understand that it will cost. When you consider the alumni giving rates of majority institutions and HBI's, it's no wonder the Howard's of the world aren't keeping up. Increased alumni giving can help change that, and put some HBI's in the conversation when the Cornel West's of the world consider their next moves.

I must go now. As a graduate of Hampton and Howard–and one who, admittedly, hasn't always given like he should–I have checks to write.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.
May 30, 2002

Why Bother With Party Platforms?

The time has come for the quintessential quadrennial tradition that shifts from great city to great city and provides the country with new injections of patriotism. No, it’s not the Olympics, but the increasingly irrelevant Democratic and Republican party conventions (if you need proof of the increasing irrelevance of these events, then look no further than the decreasing airtime given them by the major broadcast networks). The party platforms may be the most irrelevant outgrowth of the conventions. They purport to be documents that reflect the policy positions of the majority of the party supporters. While that may be true, what’s also true is that party platforms have little or no influence on voter choice. How many voters do you think actually read the platforms when deciding for whom to vote for as the next president?

Political platforms were born in an era when the presidential nominees was yet to be chosen. Consequently, the party wrote the document as a reflection of its policy aspirations regardless of the nominee. Indeed, an argument can be made that the parties were more important than the nominees in that era, thus the need for strong policy statements.

Now, with the nominee known months in advance of the convention, party platforms reflect more of the presidential candidate than the party. The nominee names the bulk of the drafting committee thereby ensuring the document best supports his or her candidacy. At most, platforms are documents intended to interest the party activist class into more faithful support of the nominee. They certainly don’t make or break a candidacy in the eyes of voters.

The draft 2004 Democratic national platform, "Strong at Home, Respected in the World" hits all the right notes on making the homeland secure, strengthening the economy, health care, education, and the environment. The document calls for stronger coordination between U.S. intelligence and security agencies, expanding health care coverage for children and adults, and making college more affordable, among other initiatives. These are hardly the kinds of positions that can be easily quibbled with; who doesn’t support such positions. However, as has been said in many other venues, the devil is in the details and the platform doesn’t do detail very well. It is largely silent on how to pay for these new initiatives and leaves much unsaid for those concerned with the structural problems in American society that create many of the needs the platform seeks to address.

The Republican platform, due in late August and yet to be released in draft form, is unlikely to be more inspirational or specific, which leaves us with two documents with input from a few hundred party activists that say very little to arouse voters.

I say let’s do away with the hyperbole that surrounds party platforms. They just aren’t that important. I’ll bet that very few voters go to the polls on election day having had their minds changed or confirmed one iota by a party platform. Moreover, the president isn’t held to what the platforms say and won’t hesitate to move away from a platform plank once in office. Platforms are a waste of time and resources, a relic of a bygone era, and should be dispensed with.

© Michael K. Fauntroy

July 17, 2004