| This study examines the federal efforts to advance equal opportunity in American higher education beginning with the Higher Education Act of 1965 through its amendments and implementation up to 1980.; Evidence supports the conclusion that these efforts deviated over time from the target as originally envisioned. The initial goal was to provide underprivileged minorities and the poor a chance through federal aid to develop their higher potentials--on a par with the advantages already held by middle- and upper-income groups. By 1980 the operational goal was "access for all," providing aid for virtually all economic classes, thus diminishing federal concentration on the neediest.; For the neediest the federal help moved social inequities from outside to inside the system of higher education. Enrollment of minorities and low-income students increased but it was concentrated in low prestige curricula and institutions, and disparities in graduation rates and academic achievement grew. Federal aid, which progressively moved into other income groups to assist with rising college costs, helped middle-income groups maintain their distance from the bottom socio-economic ranks. Inequalities were also perpetuated when appropriations failing to meet the need resulted in cuts across the board, for the neediest as well as the middle-income students.; The policy changes were veiled by conceptual disarray related to the term, "equal opportunity." Reformers were found to have deliberately retained ambiguity to avoid arousing opposition to the program. The study identifies: (a) the "smuggling" tactics used by President Johnson to sneak the program past those wary of its ideological implications, and (b) the difficulties this created for policy success in the long run. Success or failure to achieve reform was dependent on reformers' Machiavellian abilities, what Albert Hirschman has called "reform-mongering" skills. Ignored was the potential for longer term political support to be gained by pushing equal opportunity as a clear moral issue.; Ambiguity and smuggling tactics failed to hide the potential impact of the program from the opposition, but they did ultimately help institutions and the less needy students gain their own ends. The equal opportunity label was used to cover all these goals. The specific objective of genuine equal higher educational opportunity for the disadvantaged was thus overwhelmed. |
