State legislators have cut appropriations to the University of South Carolina by nearly a quarter over the past five years. But whatever reason campus officials might point to for those cuts, they can’t say lawmakers aren’t familiar with the university.
More than a third of the state’s 170 legislators have earned at least a bachelor’s degree at the flagship campus, which is located just blocks from the State House, in Columbia.
The concentration of flagship alumni in South Carolina’s legislature is among the highest in the nation, but the level of college attainment among that group—more than 80 percent of the state’s General Assembly has at least a bachelor’s degree—is just a little above average. Over all, 75 percent of state legislators have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, according to a Chronicle examination of the nation’s statehouses. In every state legislature, the rate of college completion is far above the average for both the state and the nation.
The numbers may, in one sense, be comforting—the laboratories of democracy, as states are sometimes called, are governed by a fairly well-educated group of citizens—and dispel the common assertion by college leaders that state legislators are largely uneducated. But after three consecutive years of budget cuts to higher education in most states, and little evidence that money will ever return, the data raise broader questions about whether lawmakers really value their own college experience and higher education in general. Does having a college degree influence lawmakers’ policy and appropriation decisions—and should it?
No Favoritism Here
In the Palmetto State, it wasn’t very long ago when there were clear answers to those questions. From 1937 to 1973, State Rep. Solomon Blatt, a Democrat and longtime speaker of the House, used the power of his office to build the prestige and infrastructure of his alma mater, the University of South Carolina, according to Walter Edgar, a professor of history there. The university’s physical-education center, built in 1971, was named for Mr. Blatt, who served on the Board of Trustees from 1935 to 1947.
Clemson University, a land-grant college, also had a legislative benefactor, in Sen. Edgar Brown, president pro tempore and a longtime Clemson trustee who received an honorary degree in the 1950s.
At the time, attending one of South Carolina’s main public campuses was important to a political or legal career because of the friends and connections students made with one another in a state with a small population and few other choices for a college degree, Mr. Edgar said.
To an extent, the dynamic still exists, said John L.S. Simpkins, who recently left a faculty position at the Charleston School of Law, which opened in 2004. Until that time, there was only one law school in the state, at the University of South Carolina. More than 30 of the state’s legislators have law degrees from there—the second-highest number of law degrees awarded to state legislators from any one college.
Despite all those Gamecock lawmakers, the University of South Carolina has not been shown much favoritism by the General Assembly.
Even before the most recent recession in South Carolina, the flagship campus was seeing its share of state appropriations shrink. From 2002 to 2008, tax support per student at the Columbia campus fell by more than 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, according to data from the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability. Only one other four-year institution in the state, Coastal Carolina University, saw a larger decline in per-student tax support during that period.
Officials at the University of South Carolina are careful not to blame lawmakers for a lack of loyalty as the institution fights to preserve state appropriations that have fallen rapidly during the past decade. But they are clearly playing defense in a difficult political and economic environment.
One important thing has changed since Representative Blatt’s era: There are actually fewer legislators who represent the university, said Mr. Edgar, the historian. Before 1984, state legislators were elected to represent an entire county, so all of the lawmakers from Richland County, which includes Columbia, had an interest in promoting the university’s interests. Now legislators are chosen from a single legislative district, so the university has just one state representative—a lone Democrat in a chamber heavily controlled by Republicans.
And as the state has grown, the number and size of colleges in other districts have increased along with the number of legislators who have graduated from those institutions, said Sen. C. Bradley Hutto, a Democrat, who has a bachelor’s degree from the University of South Carolina and a law degree from Georgetown University. While legislators understand the value of a college degree, they must first consider the needs of their constituents, he said. At the same time, lawmakers are limited by the state’s appropriations process, which divvies up higher-education spending by a formula—preventing one college from benefiting disproportionately.
The state’s partisan divide is another major change that’s occurred over the past decade, with Republicans in control of both chambers of the legislature after the 2002 elections. Republicans actually increased their already large majority in the General Assembly in the 2010 elections. Voters also elected Gov. Nikki R. Haley, a Republican and Clemson graduate, who has pledged not to increase taxes to fill the state’s $877-million revenue shortfall. (That shortfall nearly equals the amount the state spent on higher education in 2010.)
Rep. J. Todd Rutherford, a Democrat who earned his law degree at the University of South Carolina, said whatever support Republican lawmakers have for higher education is trumped by their conservative political ideology: “We are a one-party state, and the Republican Party has decided not to take education seriously.”
Still Gamecocks at Heart
Over all, higher education in South Carolina has not fared altogether poorly. Not including more-recent cuts, the percentage of state money spent on higher education (including allocations from the lottery) was still above the U.S. average in the 2008 fiscal year, while tax support for public colleges over the past quarter-century was only slightly below average, according to a 2010 report from the State Higher Education Executive Officers association.
Lawmakers have shown some preference for backing higher-education ventures that promote the state’s economic interests, providing tens of millions of dollars for research parks at both the University of South Carolina and Clemson.
And the legislature has also buffered public higher education in recent years from attacks, including several from former Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican who earned his degree at Furman University, a private institution in Greenville. The legislature rejected then-Governor Sanford’s proposal to free public colleges from all state regulations if they would also agree to be cut loose from state appropriations, as well as a proposed tuition cap tied to inflation.
In 2009 the General Assembly passed a law forcing Mr. Sanford to apply for South Carolina’s share of stimulus money meant for public schools and higher education. The governor had demanded to use the money to pay down state debt, but the State Supreme Court quickly ruled that he had to comply with the law.
This year a host of bills that sought to intervene in academic affairs and governance all died in committees, including a requirement that public colleges remit a portion of out-of-state tuition to the state’s general fund, a requirement that all freshmen must complete a one-credit course in study and life skills, and a limit on the percentage of nonresident students.
Robert W. Harrell Jr., speaker of the House, who earned his bachelor-of-science degree from the University of South Carolina, said being a college graduate gives lawmakers a better understanding of higher education. But college leaders have to understand that theirs are just one of a multitude of issues that legislators have to consider, he said.
“Just because you are a fan of the school doesn’t translate into a blind allegiance,” he said. “The universities don’t exist in a vacuum. We have to prioritize.”
Powerful lawmakers still sometimes get what they want for their colleges. In 2002 leaders of both parties, including Mr. Harrell, who was then chairman of the chamber’s Ways and Means Committee, made sure that a plan to use lottery money for higher education would include a pot to help pay for endowed chairs in scientific fields at the state’s research universities. Another key advocate was Rep. David H. Wilkins, then speaker of the House and a graduate of Clemson University.
“Who would have thought we would use lottery money for that?” asked Mr. Harrell. “That’s the modern-day equivalent of what Speaker Blatt would have done.”
