Elizabeth Warren college plan solves a long running progressive problem

Elizabeth Warren college plan solves a long running progressive problem
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks during a campaign rally Wednesday, April 17, 2019, in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

The progressive thinkers often find themselves wondering and debating whether universal or targeted policies are best suited to create a more equal society.

Warren’s college plan combines both of these perspectives, having anti-racism as an integral part of a better, freer, and more equal America. Whether or not she gets the nomination, that’s a policy blueprint worth adopting.

Elizabeth Warren plans to forgive student debt

That aspect of her vision has been well covered in the national press. What’s been less discussed is that Warren’s plan is also an innovative effort to fix America’s broken approach to racial inequality.

For decades, policymakers have been debating whether a universal or a targeted policy could abolish racism.

Targeted programs attempt to redress racist inequalities directly, through programs like affirmative action, while universal programs attempt to reduce the harms of racism by improving the welfare of everyone, by using instruments like Medicare for All and Social Security.

Targeted anti-racist programs have a record of considerable success in the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, was a targeted policy. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the other.

It required states with a history of discrimination against black voters to get federal permission to change their voting laws. The act enfranchised huge numbers of people; in Mississippi alone, black voting registration rates jumped from 6.7 percent in 1965 to 59.8 percent in 1967.

Some states rushed to pass vote restricting laws

The importance of these provisions protecting black voting rights was further illustrated in the months after the Supreme Court struck them down in 2013: States and localities that had formerly been prevented from pushing through inequitable measures actually came to pass laws restricting the vote.

For example, Jacksonville, Florida, moved a voting location in a black community away from public transportation, making it harder for residents to cast ballots.

The VRA was a success. But the way that it was gutted illustrates the limits to targeted anti-racist policy: Measures designed specifically to protect black people don’t attract support from the white majority, and may provoke backlash. They can alienate voters who aren’t black, and therefore may be easy to repeal or erode.

Harvard University sociologist William Julius Wilson worried in 1991 that “Many white Americans have turned, not against blacks, but against a strategy that emphasizes programs perceived to benefit only racial minorities” – programs such as affirmative action, busing, and anti-discrimination lawsuits.

Senator Bernie Sanders had expressed the same concern back when he was a presidential candidate in 2016 and he stated that a policy of reparations, in which the U.S. paid compensation to descendants of enslaved people, would be too “divisive.” Like Wilson, Sanders feared that targeted policies instituted by Democrats would anger white voters, and hand elections to Republicans. Those Republican officeholders would then pass even more racist measures. (Sanders has been more open to reparations in his 2020 campaign.)

Wilson argued that the Democrats should embrace “Full employment policies, job skills training, comprehensive health-care legislation, educational reforms in the public schools, child-care legislation, and crime and drug abuse prevention programs.” Wilson saw all of these as “race-neutral” programs that would benefit black people as well as white.

Universal programs certainly have a history of benefiting black Americans. African-American and Latinx people have lower rates of insurance coverage than whites, so expanding health-care coverage can benefit them especially, even when such programs are universal rather than targeted.

Uninsured rates of African Americans have dropped

Under Obamacare, uninsured rates among African Americans dropped by more than a third. Sanders’ Medicare for All plan would do even more.

The problem is that, while universal policies can help ameliorate some problems, they can’t always address specific challenges facing black people.

For instance, as of 2016, the typical white family had an average net worth of $171,000, while the average black family had an average worth of $17,100. That’s a massive advantage for white people, and the result of hundreds of years of discriminatory policies, from slavery to redlining.

So better health care for all, or more educational opportunities for all, won’t redress that imbalance.

Moreover, racism can undermine support for universal programs as well as for targeted ones. Food-stamp recipients are mostly white, but the myth of the black “welfare queen” who refuses to work and lazily collects federal assistance is still being used as an argument for getting rid of nutrition-assistance programs.

Are targeted or universal policies better for erasing inequities?

Targeted programs can cause some uproar. But universal programs don’t always erase inequities. And as long as those inequities persist, they can be leveraged to undermine universal programs too.

Is it best, then, to pursue universal policies or targeted policies? Warren’s educational plan has a brilliantly obvious answer: We should do both.

Warren’s program has both universal and targeted elements

The universal aspects have been most thoroughly reported: Warren wants to make college tuition and fees free at state institutions. She also intends to use a tax on ultra-millionaires to fund up to $50,000 in debt forgiveness for every holder of a student loan. Warren says the plan will “wipe out student loan debt entirely for more than 75 percent of the Americans with that debt.”

To ensure that this debt relief is targeted for those who need it most, Warren has also proposed structuring the aid in a progressive way. Students with household incomes under $100,000 receive the full $50,000 of debt relief. For every $3 of income over $100,000, students get one dollar less of debt forgiveness. Families with $250,000 or more of household income won’t benefit from this.

Since the average black household income is half that of the average white household income, targeting relief toward poorer families would again help reduce racist inequality (as well as income inequality).

Warren’s program is not limited to universal measures, though; it also has targeted anti-racist provisions. Specifically, Warren’s plan calls for an initial $50 billion in aid to Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

“Even as the civil rights movement rolled back racially discriminatory admissions policies, the stratification of our higher education system kept students of color concentrated in under-resourced institutions and left them vulnerable to predatory actors,”

Warren writes in a Medium post outlining her college plan.

Her program proposes to eliminate that vulnerability by making a college education more affordable for everyone—and by specifically strengthening institutions that have served black people.

Source: psmag.com