[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2183, MINORITY SERVING
INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2003
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 9, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-20
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
88-165 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOE BARTON, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Washington CHRIS BELL, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROB BISHOP, Utah DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama
TOM FEENEY, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Research
NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ZOE LOFGREN, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD SHERMAN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
PETER ROONEY Subcommittee Staff Director
DAN BYERS Professional Staff Member/Designee
JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members
JIMMY HAGUE Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 9, 2003
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Minority
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Gil Gutknecht, Member, Subcommittee
on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Statement by Representative J. Randy Forbes, Member, Committee on
Science, U.S. House of Representatives......................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 13
Panel I:
Honorable George Allen, Member, U.S. Senate from the State of
Virginia
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Discussion....................................................... 17
Honorable Edolphus Towns, Member, U.S. House of Representatives
from the State of New York
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 19
Discussion....................................................... 20
Panel II:
Dr. Frederick S. Humphries, President, National Association for
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: An Assessment
of Networking and Connectivity, October 2000, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 34
Biography.................................................... 101
Financial Disclosure......................................... 102
Dr. Ricardo R. Fernandez, President, Herbert H. Lehman College-
CUNY
Oral Statement............................................... 105
Written Statement............................................ 107
Biography.................................................... 112
Financial Disclosure......................................... 113
Dr. Larry L. Earvin, President, Huston-Tillotson College
Oral Statement............................................... 114
Written Statement............................................ 115
Biography.................................................... 121
Financial Disclosure......................................... 122
Dr. Dwight J. Fennell, President, Paul Quinn College
Oral Statement............................................... 123
Written Statement............................................ 125
Biography.................................................... 126
Financial Disclosure......................................... 127
Discussion....................................................... 128
Panel III:
Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 137
Written Statement............................................ 139
Biography.................................................... 142
Discussion....................................................... 143
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation....... 152
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
``Playing Catch-Up,'' Chronicle of Higher Education, June 27,
2003........................................................... 156
H.R. 2183, Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act of 2003............................. 160
H.R. 2183, MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2003
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Smith
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H.R. 2183, Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act of 2003
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2003
10:00 A.M.-12:00 P.M.
2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, the Research Subcommittee of the House
Science Committee will hold a hearing to examine the technology
infrastructure needs of minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and to
consider H.R. 2183, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act.
2. Witnesses
Panel I
Senator George Allen (R-VA)
Congressman Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Panel II
Dr. Fred Humphries is the President of the National Association for
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. Prior to joining NAFEO, Dr.
Humphries served as President of Florida A&M and Tennessee State
Universities for a total of more than 27 years.
Dr. Richardo Fernandez is the President of Herbert H. Lehman College-
CUNY and he will be testifying on behalf of the Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities. Prior to joining CUNY-Lehman, Dr. Fernandez
served at the University of Wisconsin, beginning as an Assistant
Professor of Cultural Foundations and rising to full Professor and
Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Dr. Larry Earvin is the President of Huston-Tillotson College in Texas
and he will be testifying on behalf of the United Negro College Fund.
Dr. Dwight J. Fennell is the President of Paul Quinn College in Texas.
Prior to joining Paul Quinn, Dr. Fennell worked as a American Council
on Education Fellow and he served in various capacities at Saint
Augustine's College, ranging from Assistant History Professor to Vice
President for Academic Affairs.
Panel III
Dr. Rita R. Colwell is the Director of the National Science Foundation
(NSF). Before joining the Foundation, Dr. Colwell served as President
of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute and Professor of
Microbiology at the University Maryland. She was also a member of the
National Science Board from 1984 to 1990.
3. Overarching Questions
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
1. What is the Administration's position on H.R. 2183?
2. What is the state of networking, connectivity and
technological preparedness at minority-serving institutions
(MSIs)? Are major federal investments in this area warranted?
3. What are the principal findings of the Department of
Commerce's review of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) and minority racial/ethnic populations?
4. How does H.R. 2183 propose to meet the needs of MSIs? How
might federal assistance better complement existing initiatives
by the states, localities and private sector?
5. How would H.R. 2183 ensure that federal spending is used to
further the education and research mission of MSIs?
4. Brief Overview
LThe term ``digital divide'' was popularized in the
U.S. Department of Commerce series entitled Falling Through the
Net, which documented the disparity in access to technology
between whites and minority populations. Despite recent gains,
our most recent data suggest that a digital divide still exists
between racial and ethnic groups and it may be grower wider
still.
In particular, a recent survey by an association
representing minority serving institutions found that
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) trail
behind other institutions of higher education, with limited
access to networking and computer resources, less integration
of technology into classroom activities and fewer students with
access to their own computing resources. Other minority-serving
institutions report technology problems similar to those of
HBCUs.
Minority-serving institutions award about one-fifth
of all degrees and certificates to the minority populations
they serve.
H.R. 2183, the Minority Serving Institution Digital
and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act, which would create a
$250 million grant program at the National Science Foundation,
seeks to help narrow the digital divide by building the
technology infrastructure of these minority-serving
institutions.
One issue with H.R. 2183 is whether this program
belongs in the National Science Foundation, which generally
provides funds for research and education programs on a
competitive basis to all institutions of higher education. H.R.
2183, on the other hand, is a set-aside for equipment,
primarily for the benefit of minority serving institutions.
5. Background
Minority Serving Institutions
As defined by the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, minority
serving institutions (MSIs) are institutions of higher education that
have a combination of different minority groups that total at least 50
percent of their enrollment. MSIs fall into one of several categories.
A Historically Black College or University (HBCU) is any black college
or university that was established prior to 1964 and whose principal
mission was, and is, the education of black Americans. There are
currently 103 HBCUs in the U.S. There is no official designation of
Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) but the Higher Education Act
identifies HSIs as accredited and degree granting institutions of
higher education with at least 25 percent or more full time
undergraduate Hispanic students. In 1999, there were 203 HSIs
recognized by the Department of Education. Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs) were created to provide a quality education to
American Indians and serve geographically isolated populations. The
first TCU was created in 1968. Today, there are approximately 30 TCUs.
Finally, the Higher Education Act defines Alaska Native Serving
Institutions and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions as those with an
undergraduate student enrollment of at least 20 percent and 10 percent
respectively.
MSIs have access to federal resources and monies that are not
available to other institutions of higher education. Most significant,
Title III of the Higher Education Act provides funds for institutions
serving students from low income or racial minority backgrounds.
Specifically, Part A authorizes funds for institutions that serve a
high number of students receiving Pell grants. This program was funded
at $81.5 million for FY 2003. Section 316 of Part A authorizes grants
for TCUs: $22.8 million was appropriated for FY 2003. Similarly,
Section 317 of Part A authorizes grants to Alaskan Native and Native
Hawaiian institutions: $8.2 million was appropriated in FY 2003. Funds
under Title III may be used for a variety of purposes, including the
acquisition of educational technologies and the provision of
educational services (such as faculty development in the use of these
technologies). Part B provides 5-year formula grants to HBCUs.
Authorized activities include education technology and related services
and the program was funded at $214 million for FY 2003. Finally, Title
V provides grants to HSIs and the uses of funds parallel Title III. The
FY 2003 appropriation was $92.3 million.
Other smaller programs in the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development also support technology-
related activities at minority serving institutions.
The Digital Divide
During the Clinton Administration, the U.S. Department of Commerce
issued a series of reports that documented the existence of a ``digital
divide'' among its citizens. For our purposes, the term ``digital
divide'' describes the gap between the ``information haves and have-
nots,'' or between those Americans who use or have access to
telecommunication technologies (e.g., computers, the Internet) and
those who do not.
A July 2000 report, entitled Falling Through the Net: Toward
Digital Inclusion, found that most groups of Americans were adopting
the new technology, regardless of income, education, age or gender.
Still, traditional ``have-not'' populations, including African-
Americans and Hispanics, were experiencing a digital divide that
persisted and, in some cases, grew. Whites were more likely to have
access to the Internet from home than African-Americans or Hispanics
from any location, with African-American and Hispanic households
approximately one-third as likely as a household of Asian/Pacific
Islander descent and roughly two-fifths as likely as white households.
The 2000 report also found that the gap appeared to be growing wider,
with the digital divide increasing slightly for African-Americans and
Hispanics from their December 1998 rates.
The digital divide series prompted the National Association for
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), a non-profit public
policy and advocacy group, to assess the computing resources,
networking and connectivity of its member HBCUs. Of NAFEO's 118 member
institutions, 80 HBCUs provided input into the study, known as the HBCU
Technology Assessment Study. Funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
the study found that 88 percent of HBCUs had access to T-1 lines, the
minimum standard for connectivity and generally considered insufficient
to support capabilities beyond Internet and World Wide Web
connectivity. Larger bandwidth, for faster connections and more web-
based applications, was available to half of reporting institutions.
The larger problem turned out not to be the availability of
networking capacity, but rather its use. Only 7.5 percent reported
using the high-speed lines even though they were available at half the
institutions. Similarly, of the 29 percent of HBCUs with access to
wireless technology, only 43 percent were using it. It was not clear
why many HBCUs weren't using high speed connections even when it was
available to them, but some speculated that it had to do with finance,
lack of strategic planning, faculty motivation and training. Regardless
of the reason, many schools reported minimal use of collaborative
groupware, online registration, e-commerce, distance learning and
connectivity with other libraries, state college systems or the Federal
Government as a result of this lack of connectivity beyond the T-1
level.
In addition, the study found that none of the participating HBCUs
required undergraduate students to own computers and only 15 percent
recommended student computer ownership. As a result, the vast majority
of HBCU students relied on institutional resources to connect to the
Internet, World Wide Web or other networks; yet only 50 percent of the
respondents reported providing ``on-demand'' student access to
computing resources.
Although the report did not examine the need for an improved
technology infrastructure at other MSIs, anecdotal information
indicates that the problems at other MSIs mirror those at the HBCUs.
Unfortunately, data are incomplete and the magnitude of the current
need for all MSIs is somewhat difficult to quantify.
Current Issues
According to recent reports, 21 percent of all college degrees and
certificates awarded to African-American, American Indian and Hispanic
students are conferred by MSIs. For example, NAFEO member institutions
award 29 percent of all Bachelor's degrees to African Americans in
higher education, despite the fact that they enroll approximately 17
percent of all African-American students. Similarly, Hispanic-Serving
Institutions (HSIs) award 42 percent of all degrees awarded to Hispanic
graduates, and tribally-controlled colleges and universities (TCUs)
award 19 percent of all associates degrees to American Indians.
Equally important, MSIs play an important role in the success of
under-represented students in all disciplines, including science and
engineering. For example, of African Americans earning Bachelor degrees
in science, math, engineering or technology fields in 1996, 31 percent
received them at HBCUs. Also, a high percentage of African Americans
who go on to earn advanced degrees in science disciplines received
their baccalaureate degrees at HBCUs. Similarly, HSIs produced 20
percent of all science, math, engineering or technology Bachelor's
degrees awarded to Hispanics in 1996.
These statistics are especially significant because minorities earn
only one-tenth as many science and engineering doctoral degrees as
their white counterparts. This at a time when up to 30 percent of the
Nation's workforce now need to possess significant information
technology skills to hold their jobs, and an estimated 50 percent of
the Nation's jobs will require significant information technology
skills within the next five years.
6. Legislation
On January 17, 2003, S. 196, The Digital and Wireless Network
Technology Act of 2003, was introduced by Senator Allen to establish a
$250 million per year grant program within the National Science
Foundation to strengthen the ability of MSIs to provide instruction in
digital and wireless network technologies. Senators McCain, Hollings,
Campbell, Cochran, DeWine, Fitzgerald, Graham, Grassley, Hutchison,
Lott, Miller, Santorum, Sessions, Stevens, Warner, Domenici, Talent and
Kerry are cosponsors of the legislation.
On March 13, the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
reported S. 196 by voice vote and, on April 30, it passed the Senate by
a vote of 97-0. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost
estimate for fiscal years 2004-2008 is $823 million.
On May 21, 2003, Congressman Randy Forbes introduced bipartisan
companion legislation to the Allen bill--H.R. 2183, the Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of
2003. Representatives Alexander, Baker, Burns, Cantor, Clay, Filner,
Hart, Hinojosa, Jackson-Lee, Owens, Payne, Pickering, Rogers (AL),
Rush, Scott, Snyder, Vitter, Weller and Wilson are co-sponsors of the
legislation. Congressman Edolphus Towns has introduced similar
bipartisan legislation (H.R. 2272). Both bills have been referred to
the House Science and the Education and the Workforce Committees.
7. Concerns
The Administration has raised concerns about the cost of the bill
and about whether the National Science Foundation (NSF) is the
appropriate agency to run the proposed grant program. (The
Administration, however, did not release an official position on the
bill while it was pending before the Senate.)
The concern is that NSF programs generally do not have set asides
for particular types of programs and are not geared toward providing
grants for general equipment purchases (i.e., purchases not connected
with a particular research or education project).
Possible alternative locations for the program include portions of
the Department of Commerce, including the National Telecommunications
and Information Agency or the Technology Administration. Versions of
the bill introduced in previous Congresses have placed the program in
the Department of Commerce.
8. Section-by-Section--H.R. 2183
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 provides that the bill, if enacted, would be cited as the
`Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Act of 2003.'
Section 2. Establishment of office
Establishes an Office of Digital and Wireless Network Technology
within the NSF to serve the following purposes: to strengthen the
ability of eligible institutions to provide instruction via digital and
wireless networks through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements;
and to strengthen the national digital and wireless infrastructure by
increasing national investments in eligible institutions.
Section 3. Activities supported
Authorizes the Office of Digital and Wireless Network Technology to
award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to eligible
institutions. Eligible grantees would be allowed to use such awards for
the following purposes:
To acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking capability, hardware
and software, digital network technology, wireless technology, and
infrastructure;
To develop and provide educational services for students or faculty
seeking an approved degree or certificate;
To provide teacher education, library and media specialist training,
and preschool and teacher aid certification to those individuals who
want to acquire or enhance technology skills for use in the classroom;
To implement joint projects and consortia to provide technology
education to a State or State education agency, local education agency,
community-based organizations, national non-profit organizations, or
businesses, including minority businesses;
To provide professional development to administrators and faculty of
institutions with institutional responsibility for technology
education;
To provide eligible institutions with capacity-building technical
assistance through remote technical support, workshops, distance
learning, new technologies, and other technological applications;
To foster the use of information communications technology to increase
scientific, mathematical, engineering, and technology instruction and
research; and
To develop proposals to be submitted under the Act and to develop
strategic plans for information technology investments.
Section 4. Application and review procedure
Requires that for an institution to be eligible to receive a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement, it must submit an application to
the Director. Such an application would be submitted according to
requirements developed by the Director. The Director, along with the
Advisory Council established under subsection (b), would establish a
procedure for acceptance and notification as well as a statement
regarding the availability of funds.
Requires the Director to establish an Advisory Council. The
Advisory Council would be responsible for advising the Director on the
best ways to involve eligible institutions in the activities described
in section 3. In selecting the members of the Advisory Council, the
Director may consult with representatives of appropriate organizations,
including representatives of eligible institutions, to ensure that the
membership of the advisory council reflects participation by technology
and telecommunications institutions, minority businesses, communities
of eligible institutions, federal agency personnel, and other
individuals who are knowledgeable about eligible institutions and
technology issues.
Requires each institution awarded a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement under section 2 to provide the new Office of Digital and
Wireless Technology with any relevant institutional statistical or
demographic data it requests.
Requires the Director to hold an annual meeting with those
institutions that receive awards. Such meetings are expected to foster
collaborations and promote capacity building activities among eligible
institutions, allowing for the dissemination of information and ideas.
Section 5. Matching requirement
Requires that when an institution is awarded a grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement by the Director, it make available non-federal
contributions in an amount that is 25 percent of the award or $500,000,
whichever is less. The matching requirement is waived for any
institution with no endowment, or an endowment worth less than
$50,000,000.
Section 6. Limitations
An institution awarded more than $2,500,000 shall not be eligible
for another grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, until every
other eligible institution that has applied for an award has received
one. Even when each grant, contract, or cooperative agreement has been
awarded for the implementation of a consortium or joint project, the
funding shall be made available to, and administered by, an eligible
institution.
Section 7. Annual report and evaluation
Requires each institution awarded a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement, to submit an annual report to the Director detailing its use
of the funding.
Requires that the Director, in consultation with the Secretary of
Education, review the reports required under subsection (a) and
evaluate the program authorized by section 3 on the basis of those
reports every 2 years.
Requires that the Director, as part of the evaluation of subsection
(b), describe the activities undertaken and assess the short- and long-
range impact of activities carried out with the use of the awards on
the students, faculty, and staff of the institutions.
Requires the Director to submit a report to Congress based on the
evaluation. The report shall include such recommendations, as may be
appropriate, including recommendations concerning the continuing need
for federal support of the program.
Section 8. Definitions
Defines the terms `eligible institution,' `Director,' and `minority
business.' The term `eligible institution' is as defined in the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)). The term `Director' means
the Director of the National Science Foundation. The term `minority
business' includes HUBZone small businesses as defined in section 3(p)
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p).
Section 9. Authorization of appropriations
Authorize $250,000,000 to the Director of the NSF for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008, to carry out the Act.
Chairman Smith. The Subcommittee on Research will come to
order. It is a pleasure to welcome everyone to our hearing this
morning on an issue of importance to, certainly, everybody, but
especially, members of the Science Committee and the Research
Subcommittee in particular. The role of technology in helping
to create a diverse and scientific literate workforce is very
important to our country's future.
We are all here today because we believe in the value of
technology to improve commerce, the public sector, and even how
citizens interact. And we recognize that many of our nation's
smaller colleges and universities, certainly, those serving
minorities, face challenges in meeting the ever evolving
advanced technology requirements important to educating and
preparing a 21st century workforce. These technological
challenges have collectively become known as the ``Digital
Divide'', and today we are going to examine the impact that the
digital divide is having on our workforce, as well as some
proposed solutions to the problem.
Let me just say that from the outset this committee has
long recognized the importance of education in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology for all students. In
fact, our National Science Foundation legislation that was
signed into law last December 22, and originated in this
subcommittee, included the Tech Talent and Math and Science
Partnership legislation that is going to help implement our
best efforts and best knowledge in stimulating an interest and
the ability of K through 12 students.
That said, it would be a mistake to rest on our laurels. It
is estimated that up to 30 percent of our nation's workforce
now need to possess significant information technology skills
if they are going to hold their jobs, and within the next five
years, an estimated 50 percent of the Nation's jobs will
require significant IT, information technology, skills if they
are going to survive and if we are going to compete in the new
challenges of a world economy. Unfortunately, many are not
being adequately prepared and that is part of our discussion on
legislation that has been introduced both in the Senate by
Senator Allen and also here in the House.
According to recent statistics, minorities earn
proportionately less science and engineering doctoral degrees
and advanced degrees in math and science than their
counterparts. The legislation before us today would attempt to
address this problem by providing grants to strengthen the
technology infrastructure and the ability to provide
instruction and education technology to minority students in
this country.
I embrace the goals of this legislation, but recognize that
the so-called digital divide is more complex than it might
first appear. Foremost, I want to take a close look at the
limited dollars we have available and make sure they are
appropriately targeted to solving the problem at hand and that
taxpayer support be results oriented.
And I believe that the digital divide is a challenge that,
if the Federal Government is to be involved, should be
addressed on the basis of a school's financial need to provide,
if you will, connectivity, networking, and other technologies
to their students, not on the race and/or ethnicity of its
student population. To be sure, many minority serving
institutions do not have the depth and breadth of financial
resources that large research universities have and other
colleges across this country, and that needs to be one of our
goals and considerations. But we also know that not all
minority serving institutions are poor and that hundreds of
other smaller and rural colleges also face the challenge of
bridging the digital divide.
In conclusion, I don't want to make false assurances to our
minority-serving colleges and universities. The fact is that
the effective use of technology and educational setting is not
inexpensive. It is going to take a coordinated effort, one that
involves institutions, governments, and the private sector to
motivate and train more students to bridge this technology
divide.
In an effort to strengthen the technology infrastructure at
the minority serving institutions, I think we want to ensure
that we do not inadvertently reduce the very programs in this
committee's jurisdiction that help elementary and secondary
school students be better prepared in science and math.
Without objection, the rest of my statement will be
included in the record at this point, and I would ask
Representative Johnson for her comments.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Smith
It is a pleasure to welcome you to our hearing this morning on an
issue of importance to the members of the Science Committee and the
Research Subcommittee in particular--the role of technology in helping
to create a diverse and scientifically literate workforce.
We are all here today because we believe in the value of technology
to improve commerce, the public sector, and even how citizens interact.
And we recognize that many of our nation's smaller colleges and
universities, including those that serve minorities, face challenges in
meeting the ever evolving advanced technology requirements important to
educating and preparing a 21st century workforce. These technological
challenges have collectively become known as the ``Digital Divide,''
and today we will examine the impact the digital divide is having on
our workforce, as well as some proposed solutions to this problem.
Let me just say from the outset that this committee has long
recognized the importance of education in science, mathematics,
engineering and technology for all students. In fact, last year, our
National Science Foundation legislation that the President signed into
law, and which originated in this subcommittee, included the ``Tech
Talent'' and ``Math and Science Partnerships'' legislation--significant
programs to educate and inspire our young people, and women and
minorities especially, to become scientists, engineers and
mathematicians.
That said, it would be a mistake to rest on our laurels. It is
estimated that up to 30 percent of the Nation's workforce now need to
possess significant information technology skills to hold their jobs,
and within the next five years, an estimated 50 percent of the Nation's
jobs will require significant information technology skills.
Unfortunately, many are not being adequately prepared to meet this
demand. According to recent statistics, minorities earn proportionately
less science and engineering doctoral degrees as their non-minority
counterparts.
The legislation before us today would attempt to address this
problem by providing grants to strengthen the technology
infrastructure--and the ability to provide instruction in education
technology--to minority serving institutions through a new grant
program at the National Science Foundation.
I embrace the goals of this legislation but recognize that the
``digital divide'' issue is more complex than it might first appear.
Foremost, I want to take a close look at the limited dollars we have
available and make sure they are appropriately targeted to solving the
problem at hand and that taxpayer support be results-oriented.
And I believe that the Digital Divide is a challenge that, if the
Federal Government is to be involved, should be addressed on the basis
of a school's financial need to provide connectivity, networking, and
other technologies to their students, not on the race and/or ethnicity
of its student population. To be sure, many Minority-serving
institutions do not have the depth and breadth of financial resources
that large research universities have. But we also know that not all
Minority-serving Institutions are poor, and that hundreds of other
smaller and rural colleges also face the challenge of bridging the
digital divide.
In addition, I do not want to make false assurances to our minority
serving colleges and universities. The fact is that the effective use
of technology in educational settings is not inexpensive. It will take
a coordinated effort--one that involves institutions, governments, and
the private sector--to motivate and train more students to bridge the
technology divide.
And in our efforts to strengthen the technology infrastructure at
minority serving institutions, I want to ensure that we do not
inadvertently reduce the very programs in this committee's jurisdiction
that help elementary and secondary school students be better prepared
in science, math, engineering and technology education. With regard to
this, creating a competing program in NSF's Education and Human
Resources Directorate could be a problem.
Finally, and most important, I want to ensure that these scarce
federal resources are used to improve the technological literacy of
students and faculty. In our discussions about bandwidth and
connectivity, I hope we will remain mindful of the fact that bridging
the digital divide is more than making technology available: it is
using technology to improve education, make students more
technologically literate and better equip them to solve problems in the
community and work productively.
Working together, I am confident that we can address concerns while
also ensuring a better future for the students and faculty at minority
serving institutions.
With that, I am pleased to welcome all of our distinguished
witnesses to our subcommittee hearing. And I especially want to thank
Senator Allen and Representative Forbes, a member of our Committee, and
Representative Towns--who are with us today--for their thoughtful
leadership on the legislation before us today and their continued
efforts on behalf of minority serving institutions. I look forward to
the testimony.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
express my appreciation for you calling this committee hearing,
and welcome our distinguished guests--distinguished witnesses
this morning.
Minority serving institutions will prepare a growing
portion of the future science and technology workforce simply
because demographics dictate that minority students will
comprise a greater and greater share of the Nation's college-
age population. It is in the national interest to ensure that
minority serving institutions have the capability to provide a
quality education for their students. This includes the
presence of an information infrastructure capable of supporting
distance learning, research collaborations with partner
institutions, and remote access to educational resources and
national research facilities.
Unfortunately, the capability does not exist at most
minority serving institutions. A recent report from the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
[NTIA] documents the deficiencies in the information
infrastructure of these colleges and universities. Although
most institutions have some Internet access, it is generally
not the high speed access necessary to support distant
education and research applications. More troubling, half of
these institutions have no plan in place for upgrading the
information technology infrastructure. Since minority serving
institutions have significantly smaller budgets than other
higher education institutions, and therefore, less money for
information technology support and upgrades, they would
inevitably, fall further behind as the technology continues its
rapid advance.
The legislation on review today seeks to address this
problem by providing grants to minority serving institutions
for information technology upgrades and for training faculty
and staff to use the technology effectively in support of their
education and research activities. This morning, we will review
why the program authorized by H.R. 2183 is needed and will
discuss how best to implement it. I solicit the comments and
recommendations of our witnesses on ways to improve the
legislation to make the program more effective.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for calling this
hearing and for your intent to move this legislation
expeditiously by scheduling a Full Committee Markup next week.
I also thank our witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee and I look forwards to our discussion. Thanks
again, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses
today to review this important legislation.
Minority serving institutions will prepare a growing portion of the
future science and technology workforce, simply because demographics
dictate that minority students will comprise a greater and greater
share of the Nation's college-aged population.
It is in the national interest to ensure that minority serving
institutions have the capability to provide a quality education for
their students. This includes the presence of an information
infrastructure capable of supporting distance learning, research
collaborations with partner institutions, and remote access to
educational resources and national research facilities.
Unfortunately, the capability does not exist at most minority
serving institutions. A recent report from the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] documents the
deficiencies in the information infrastructure of these colleges and
universities. Although most institutions have some Internet access, it
is generally not the high-speed access necessary to support distance
education and research applications. More troubling, half of these
institutions have no plan in place for upgrading their information
technology infrastructure. Since minority serving institutions have
significantly smaller budgets than other higher education institutions,
and therefore less money for information technology support and
upgrades, they will inevitably fall further behind as the technology
continues its rapid advance.
The legislation under review today seeks to address this problem by
providing grants to minority serving institutions for information
technology upgrades and for training faculty and staff to use the
technology effectively in support of their education and research
activities.
This morning we will review why the program authorized by H.R. 2183
is needed and will discuss how best to implement it. I solicit the
comments and recommendations of our witnesses on ways to improve the
legislation to make the program more effective.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and for
your intent to move the legislation expeditiously by. I also thank our
witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look forward
to our discussion.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Representative Johnson, and we
have scheduled, not next week but the week after next, have
scheduled for the full Committee. Without objection,
Representative Forbes, who is a member of the Science Committee
will sit with us in this subcommittee because of his interest
and leadership in this particular issue. And Mr. Forbes, I am
going to ask for your comments, but before that, I will yield
to Mr. Gutknecht for about a minute for his comments, since he
has to leave also.
Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I
want to congratulate the authors of this legislation. I want to
thank you for having this hearing. And I apologize on behalf of
other Members of this subcommittee. The attendance is not going
to be what it really should be. This is a very important issue.
Unfortunately, I have a Budget Committee meeting going on right
now and I am going to have to leave as well. But I think this
does get to a pretty fundamental question, and that I think
philosophically bridges a lot of territory.
The argument sometimes around here is between equality of
opportunity and equality of result. I don't think we can
guarantee equality of result, but we do have a responsibility
to guarantee equality of opportunity. And if we are in the
information age, and if research is going to become an
increasingly important component of higher education, it seems
to me we need to do everything we can to make certain that
students that go to any university or any college in the United
States, regardless, at least have the opportunity to have
access to that information.
So this is a very important piece of legislation. I want to
thank you for bringing it forward. Hopefully, we can move it
along. And with a little help from the appropriators, can
perhaps get something done this year. Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. And your comments, Representative Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you
and Ranking Member Johnson for holding this hearing today. I am
also grateful for our witnesses for joining us today to discuss
H.R. 2183. I want to particularly thank Senator Allen, my
colleague, Congressman Towns for testifying before the
Committee today.
As we have heard mentioned, full access to technology has
become the standard, not a bonus, in how we communicate and do
our jobs every day. Right now, 60 percent of all jobs require
information technology skills, and information technology jobs
pay significantly higher than jobs in non-technology related
fields. Yet, minority serving institutions often lack the basic
information and digital technology infrastructure needed to
provide their students the necessary skills and access to
compete and qualify for America's best paying jobs.
A recent article published in the Chronicle of Higher
Education highlights the need for this legislation. At the
University of Virginia, there are 62 people to assist with the
development, use, and maintenance of campus information
technology. At Virginia Union, an historically black college
with half the enrollment of the University of Richmond, has a
computing staff of four for the entire school. At Virginia
State University, which is located in my district, only 10
percent of the students own computers, while 96 percent of the
students own computers at the University of Richmond.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by saying that whenever
we get an issue like this, it is often times easy for us to
agree on the goals. It is hard for us, though, to come together
on the specifics. In this particular case, we can find all
kinds of reasons to differ over the specifics and the details,
but if we do and we take our eyes off the goal, we are going to
lose that goal and it is not going to become a reality. I think
this piece of legislation should move forward, and if it does,
it is going to move a long way to providing the digital
infrastructure that we need at our historically black colleges.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative J. Randy Forbes
Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson, for holding
this hearing today. I am also grateful to our witnesses for joining us
today to discuss H.R. 2183, the Minority Serving Institution Digital
and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003. I would also like to
thank Senator Allen and my colleague Congressman Town for testifying
before the Committee today.
Full access to technology has become the standard, not a bonus, in
how we communicate and do our jobs everyday. Right now, 60 percent of
all jobs require information technology skills and information
technology jobs pay significantly higher than jobs in non-technology
related fields, yet minority-serving institutions lack the basic
information and digital technology infrastructure needed to provide
their students the necessary skills and access to compete and qualify
for America's best paying jobs.
H.R. 2183 would help provide essential resources to address the
technology gap that exists at many minority-serving institutions by
providing $250 million in grants Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges and
Universities. The program would offer opportunities to these
institutions for activities such as computer acquisition, campus wiring
and technology training. Each of these activities is an important step
towards bridging the digital divide.
A recent article, published in the Chronicle of Higher Education,
highlights the need for this legislation. At the University of Richmond
there are 62 people to assist with the development, use, and
maintenance of campus information technology. At Virginia Union, a
historically black college with half the enrollment of the University
of Richmond has a computing staff of four for the entire school. At
Virginia State University, which is located in my district, only 10
percent of the students own computers, while 96 percent of the students
own computers at the University of Richmond.
A study completed by the Department of Commerce and the National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education indicates that no
historically black college or university requires computer ownership
for their undergraduate students; 13 HBCUs reported having no students
owning their own personal computer; over 70 percent of the students at
historically black colleges and universities rely on the college or
university to provide computers, but only 50 percent of those
universities can provide their students with access to computers. While
this study did not address the needs of other MSIs, there is anecdotal
evidence that other MSIs have the same problems as those found at
HBCUs.
This legislation is a start in the right direction. I look forward
to working with each of you to come up with a solution to solve this
problem.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson for holding this important hearing on this
pressing issue for our nation's minority-serving institutions.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. And Senator Allen, we realize
you have other meetings, so please proceed with your comments.
Panel I
STATEMENT OF GEORGE ALLEN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Smith,
Ranking Member Johnson, other members of the Committee, and
Congressman Forbes. It is great to be with you all and thank
you for holding this hearing. It is good to be back in the
people's House where I once served for a whole 14 months. It is
great to be with you all and I really do thank you all for
holding this hearing. I, particularly, want to thank
Congressman Forbes for introducing H.R. 2183, which is the
companion of Senate Bill 196, the Minority-Serving Institution
Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act, which passed
the Senate on a vote of 97 to nothing. And the report of the
Senate Committee on Commerce and Science and Transportation I
think would be good reading for you all. The important
background that your staff has done here in this committee, the
Subcommittee, is very helpful as well.
As Congressman Forbes said, the goal of our legislation, of
this legislation, is very clear. We want to increase access to
technology and address the technological deficiencies that
exist at minority serving institutions and provide our young
people, regardless of their ethnicity, regardless of their
race, with important tools for success not just in college but
in succeeding in life and the workforce.
Now, these initiates you can call it the digital divide.
The way I look at this is it is an economic opportunity divide.
It is, generally, an economic matter. It has manifested itself
in colleges and universities, what you may see in the general
public as far as access to the Internet, what you see in the
general population insofar as computer ownership and all the
rest, and it gets even manifested in greater intensity when you
look at the facts, and figures, and statistics insofar as
minority serving institutions.
I know the Members of this committee, the Subcommittee on
Research, as well as Chairman Boehlert and all the folks on the
House Science Committee, know better than most in Washington
that the demand for workers in science and technology continues
at a steady pace. The facts are that African-Americans,
Hispanics, and American Indians constitute one-quarter of the
total United States workforce and 30 percent of college-age
population. It is estimated that in 10 years, these minorities
will comprise nearly 40 percent of all college-age Americans.
Yet, African-Americans, Latinos, American Indians comprise only
seven percent of the U.S. computer and information science
workforce, only six percent of the engineering workforce, and
less than two percent of the computer science faculty. As
Congressman Forbes said, 60 percent of all the jobs out there
require technological proficiency, and clearly, those IT jobs
pay more than the non-IT jobs. We have over 200 Hispanic-
serving institutions, over 100 historically black colleges and
universities, and 34 tribal colleges throughout our land. It is
clear that minority serving institutions provide a valuable
service to the educational strength and the future growth of
our nation. These institutions must have the capabilities and
the infrastructure available for their students, and as well as
their faculty and even to attract faculty, so that those
students can compete and succeed in today's workforce.
My view is we need to tap that under-utilized talent that
we have in this country. I am in favor of the H-1B visas to
bring in workers from overseas because of the demands of
technology, but when you recognize the absolute truths and
facts, there are millions of Americans with the proper
training, with the proper education, that can get those good
jobs, those good paying jobs right here in our own country. And
the fact of the matter is, in particular, for the historically
black colleges and universities, they are a legacy of the days
of separate but unequal. They do not have the endowments, they
do not have for the most part the foundations to pay for it so
they are behind. Their students don't have the aid to get their
own computers. And that is why we put in this bill the
requirement that if anybody, any college or university has a
$50 million endowment or more, there needs to be matching
funds. So there is that aspect of economics to it.
And Hampton University in Virginia is one of those that
does have it. They weren't real pleased with this. They said
why in the heck should we have to do it. I said, look, this is
better than what you have otherwise, so the president wisely
said, okay, we will go along with it. But gosh, just because we
have a bigger foundation, we have done all this, why should we
have matching funds. I said, it is an economics issue, it makes
sense. But most students don't have computers so they are
queued up in computer labs and that is why that infrastructure
needs to be improved there. They also don't have the
professors.
And Congressman Forbes mentioned the Chronicle for Higher
Education, and Mr. Chairman, I would like the June 27, 2003
article entitled, Playing Catch Up, in the Chronicle for Higher
Education be made a part of the record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
[Note: The article referred to appears in Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record.]
Senator Allen. And it does show the difference between
Virginia Union, an historically black college and university,
compared to University of Richmond, both private colleges in
Richmond. And I venture to say that if you compare Texas
Southern to Texas Tech, or Florida A&M to Florida State, or
Virginia State and Virginia Tech, you would see these vast
disparities in opportunity and infrastructure. I will say that
this has been supported by the Information Technology
Association of America, ITAA, Computer Associates
International, Oracle, Gateway, Bearing Point Technologies,
Motorola, as well as others in the minority-serving
associations.
There were some concerns by some, including our colleague
here, Congressman Towns, insofar as a peer review process at
the National Science Foundation. We do have that peer review
while providing flexibility needed to administer the grant
program. We are working--also, they would be working with the
Advisory Council that was created in the bill. And our hope is
to provide the NSF with a maximum amount of flexibility to
develop an equitable and fair process for evaluating these
grants while ensuring that any peer review panel include
members from minority serving institutions.
So let me close with this, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. A lot of us talk about doing something about the
digital divide or the economic opportunity divide. There is a
lot of talk, there are a lot of studies, a lot of facts,
statistics, and a whole lot of rhetoric. With this measure that
Congressman Forbes has introduced and the measure we got passed
in the Senate, we recognize the time is now for action; not
talk, but action--positive constructive ideas that will
tangibly improve the educational opportunities for students and
faculty at minority serving institutions across this country.
We need to provide that access, that better technology. And
I trust, Mr. Chairman, with your leadership and that of
Congressman Forbes, with this initiative, the Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act,
with this measure we can truly help close that opportunity gap,
that economic opportunity gap, here in the United States of
America. We will see the tangible difference in positive
improvements in those campuses and will help make sure that no
college student is left behind.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman and all the Members of the
Committee.
Discussion
Chairman Smith. With the permission of the Committee, and
Representative Towns, with your permission, I would--since
Senator Allen is on a tight schedule, if we might ask Senator
Allen any questions the Committee might choose to ask, and then
we will proceed with Representative Towns.
And Senator Allen, one question I have is how do we get
some of these minorities into those colleges? We have started
this partnership act, and it seems to me that it is very
important that we look at ways to encourage and inspire, and if
you will, put some kind of an effort to encourage more minority
students to take an interest in science and math in the K
through 12 and get them into college to accommodate the
additional requirements of this.
How do we do something like this for the K through 12
effort to encourage more minority students, including women, to
get into the science and math arena?
Senator Allen. We actually had a hearing on that in the
Senate as well, my friend, Senator Wyden. I think that the
basic K through 12 needs to have an increased emphasis and
accountability in science and mathematics, as well as
economics, and social studies, and language arts. And all of
that is very important. And that is, primarily, in my view, a
function of state governments working with administration of it
by local governments. And so in Virginia, Senator--I keep
calling him Senator Forbes--Congressman Forbes was a big ally
when we put in high academic standards, and you can't leave any
child behind. We don't want students being graduated from grade
to grade without knowing the essentials of science and
mathematics, as well as being able to read, and write, and
speak the English language well, and know about major
civilizations of the world and economics and technologies.
So in Virginia, we have the technology standards.
Obviously, the academic standards in math, science, social
studies, and language arts. We did have to get more graphing
calculators for those who could not afford them because of the
higher math standards. We had to provide also for different
science probing kits for the science standards. And so you do
have to invest in that area. Then you have to make sure that
these students recognize, hey, there are good paying jobs here.
There is something relevant to all of this. Why am I studying
all of this? Well, there is a relevance, whether it may be
interesting them to get into aeronautics, or nanotechnology,
computer sciences, and others. But if they have that basic
understanding when they go on to college to either become
teachers or enter the field of work in the private sector, for
African-Americans in particular, at least from my experiences
and it is borne out by the facts in talking to Congresswoman
Johnson, many of the historically black colleges and
universities are nabbing you. It is a tradition, maybe their
families went there, but still, it is a very important
component in higher education. And if they then get there and
they don't have, as Congressman Forbes said, the professors
there, and they can't attract the professors because they don't
have the infrastructure, what they are doing is just really
limiting that higher education. Because the more education
someone gets, it is just proven by facts the more knowledge one
has, the better jobs they have. That is the good logic to it
all.
So K through 12 is important. This addresses, though,
higher education, and higher education is where you fine tune
those schools for those who do want to get those computer
sciences or engineering jobs. But if you don't have the faculty
because you don't have the critical technological
infrastructure, the students may be doing fairly well, but they
are really missing out on the opportunities to get the
training, the education, that when they graduate from, whether
it is Virginia Union, or Norfolk State, or Texas Southern, or
Grambling, or Albany State, or the Mississippi Valley State, or
Jackson State--we could go on for many of the schools--then
they are not going to be able to get those good paying jobs and
contribute to our society. So this is a comprehensive approach.
It is focused on higher education and it is a great opportunity
that I think we can make that positive impact on their lives
and the security of our country, economic as well as national
security.
Chairman Smith. I agree. Senator, my staff nudged me and
said that they had promised that you could leave by 20 after,
but if there is a quick question for Senator Allen, I will
accept it. Senator Allen, thank you very much for your
leadership on this issue and for testifying before our
subcommittee.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
working with you and Congressman Forbes to get this over the
goal line. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. We will do it week after next. Congressman
Towns, thank you for being here and for your leadership on this
issue.
STATEMENT OF EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Is your button on?
Mr. Towns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Johnson. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to testify
before you today with Senator Allen. In the 107th Congress,
Senator Cleland and I decided it was time to do something about
the lack of technological resources at our nation's MSIs. While
our bill did not pass in the last Congress, I was pleased that
we had strong bipartisan support in the Senate, including
Senator Allen from Virginia, Chairman Young from Alaska here in
the House.
This year, Senator Allen advanced the cause by introducing
S.196, which placed a similar program in the National Science
Foundation. I would first like to thank and congratulate
Senator Allen for doing that, for his fine work, and I have
been pleased to have the opportunity to work with him on the
legislation, which passed the Senate a few weeks ago, 97 to 0.
While I support the effort of Senator Allen and my
colleague, Congressman Forbes, I would like to briefly comment
on the one difference in our two bills. It is on the issue of
peer review. Peer review is the manner by which members of the
MSI community would be able to advise the National Science
Foundation on which school should receive this grant money. It
is important, Mr. Chairman, as opposed to reviewers from large
research universities who do not have any familiarity with the
MSI community. Similar language was included in the bill last
Congress, which was supported by Senator Allen and myself.
It is my understanding that the NSF has concerns with the
notion of a peer review provision, however, I believe the past
record of performance by NSF argues strongly for a peer review
provision. For example, in the year 2000, numbers suggest that
only 1.29 percent of eligible NSF monies went to historically
black colleges and universities. In Fiscal Year 2002, the
representation of racial and ethnic minority reviewers who make
decisions on grant recipients was approximately 1,100
individuals from a pool of over 37,000. These statistics
definitely suggest that there is, in fact, a need for reviewers
from MSIs to participate in a peer review process, which for
this program goes beyond a mere advisory capacity.
I might add further, Mr. Chairman, I know that some have
argued that this program may be better suited for placement in
the Department of Commerce rather than NSF. As one of the
authors of last year's bill, I do believe the MSIs would reap
greater benefit from a program that was not limited to solely
funding academic enhancements for science, research, and
development, which would be the case if the program became part
of NSF. Let me reiterate that last year's bill contained a peer
review provision, because the Commerce Department did not have
a record of interaction with MSIs.
I would certainly encourage the Committee to explore both
the Commerce Department and the NSF as agencies which could
house this program. I would also again stress that there
remains a need for the inclusion of a peer review provision
regardless of where the program is located.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today reflects the
need for a program that will help countless students at MSIs
across the country regardless of where it is located. Just as
the government has a responsibility to ensure that students
have up-to-date textbooks and classrooms, we must also ensure
that all of our students have access to modern technology
services. I want to emphasize that my interest in this
legislation is focused on creating opportunities available for
all MSIs, not just those few who may have established
themselves as elite research universities. If we all work
together, this basic principle can be achieved if we make the
commitment to do it.
I would once again like to thank Senator Allen and my
colleague, Congressman Forbes, for their leadership on this
issue, and look forward to working with them to enact
legislation that would truly help lift all of these schools
into the 21st century. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
me the opportunity to testify, and I agree with my colleague,
Senator Allen. I think that the time for action is now, and I
think that we should move as quickly as possible. And on that
note, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Towns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Edolphus Towns
Thank you Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today with
Senator Allen regarding H.R. 2183.
Long before coming to the United States Congress, I have been
intimately involved with our nation's Minority Serving Institutions or
``MSIs,'' specifically Historically Black Colleges and Universities,
not only graduating from North Carolina A&T but also serving on Shaw
University's Board of Trustees and assisting for years in fundraising
for the United Negro College Fund, now headed by our former colleague
Bill Gray.
In the 107th Congress, Senator Cleland and I decided it was time to
do something about the lack of technological resources at our nation's
MSIs. While our bill did not pass last Congress, I was pleased that we
had strong bi-partisan support in the Senate, including Senator Allen
from Virginia as well Chairman Young from Alaska here in the House.
This year, Senator Allen advanced the cause by introducing S.196,
which placed a similar program in the National Science Foundation. I
would first like to thank and congratulate the gentleman from Virginia
for his fine work and I have been pleased to have the opportunity to
work with him on the legislation, which passed the Senate a few weeks
ago.
While I support the efforts of Senator Allen and my colleague,
Congressman Forbes, I would like to briefly comment on the ONE
difference in our two bills. It is on the issue of Peer Review. Peer
Review is the manner by which members of the MSI community would be
able to advise the National Science Foundation on which schools should
receive this grant money, as opposed to reviewers from large research
universities who do not have any familiarity with the MSI community.
Similar language was included in the bill last Congress which was
supported by Senator Allen and myself.
It is my understanding that the NSF has concerns with the notion of
a Peer Review provision; however, I believe the past record of
performance by NSF argues strongly for a Peer Review Provision. For
example, the Year 2000 numbers suggest that only 1.29 percent of
eligible NSF monies went to HBCUs. Moreover, the current representation
of racial and ethnic minority reviewers is approximately 60 individuals
from a database containing over 240,000 people.
These statistics definitely suggest that there is, in fact, a need
for reviewers from MSIs to participate in a peer review process, for
this program, which for this program goes beyond a mere advisory
capacity.
I might add Mr. Chairman; I know that some have argued that this
program may be better suited for placement in the Department of
Commerce rather than NSF. As one of the authors of last year's bill, I
do believe that MSIs would reap greater benefits from a program that
was not limited to solely funding academic enhancements for ``science,
research and development'' which would be the case if the program
became part of NSF. Let me reiterate that last year's bill contained a
``Peer Review'' provision because the Commerce Department did not have
a record of interaction with MSIs.
I would certainly encourage the committee to explore both the
Commerce Department and the NSF as agencies, which could house this
program. I would also again stress that there remains a need for the
inclusion of a peer review provision regardless of where the program is
located.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today reflects the need for
a program that will help countless students at MSIs across the country
regardless of where it is located. Just as the government has a
responsibility to ensure that students have up to date textbooks and
classrooms, we must also ensure that all our students have access to
modern technology services. I want to emphasize that my interest in
this legislation is focused on creating opportunities available for all
MSIs, not just those few who may have established themselves as elite
research universities. If we all work together, this basic principle
can be achieved.
I would once again like to thank Senator Allen and my colleague Mr.
Forbes for their leadership on this issue and look forward to working
with them to enact legislation that will truly help lift all of these
schools into the 21st Century. I thank you Mr. Chairman for the
opportunity to testify today and look forward to taking any question
the panel may have.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Discussion
Chairman Smith. Mr. Towns, when you talk about peer review,
are you suggesting that there be minority representation on the
peer review for all research grant applications?
Mr. Towns. That is correct.
Chairman Smith. But normally, the review of a particular
area of research is given--I mean, who we ask to review is,
generally, some of the individuals that are expertise in those
particular areas. And it seems to me--are you suggesting that
we legislatively demand that minorities be involved regardless
of what the grant application is for?
Mr. Towns. Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is simply this,
that if you have reviewers that have gone to these elite
universities--and I think that they might not have the
sensitivity to some of the other schools that we need to bring
in, and I think that is the problem. So even if you have a
minority person on, and that person is not, you know, familiar
with some of the other universities, colleges, then I am not
certain that they would be served well. So I think that we have
to have the kind of balance to be able to make certain that
everybody is included.
Chairman Smith. I see. I think I agree with you that it is
reasonable to make sure that there is an outreach to include
schools that are serving minorities to get some of those
research grants, but in terms of what grants and what research
areas are going to be pursued maybe isn't as important as
trying to make sure that some of the research grant effort go
to all institutions.
Mr. Towns. I am not saying that you know--the point that I
am making, I think we are agreeing with each other. I really
do. What I am saying to you is this, that if you do not have,
you know, people involved from these institutions that, Mr.
Chairman, I am afraid they are going to be left out. You see,
what happens is we have certain elite universities out there.
They get the grants and others do not. Take, for instance, we
have in Mr. Forbes' area a school like St. Paul, will never be
able to benefit from, you know, if we don't indicate that. Like
Everetts in my home town. Of course, if we don't say something
about it or legislate it, then they will never benefit from it.
So what I am saying is simply this, that we have to have
people that are sensitive to these kinds of issues to be able
to include everybody, bring everybody in. If not, you know, we
are going to continue business as usual, and I think we cannot
afford the luxury of that.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Representative Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Towns, I had a
conversation with Senator Allen prior to us starting this
morning. He indicated he has made a correction in his bill.
Have you seen that correction?
Mr. Towns. I have not.
Ms. Johnson. Nor have I, but he feels that that takes care
of the concern and felt that out of his research it warranted
that change. If this coincides with your concern, can these
bills be merged?
Mr. Towns. Right, if it does. I would like to see his
language, Ms. Johnson, before I would commit to that.
Ms. Johnson. Sure.
Mr. Towns. But I am eager to move this along. I really want
to see it happen. But the point is that I think that we do not
want to make a mistake in terms of business as usual. So I
would like to see the language and see--you know, if we could
merge it, I would be receptive to doing that.
Ms. Johnson. Well, I agree with you totally. I would like
to see it myself, because the record speaks for itself. It is
documented that these institutions have not received any
significant grant dollars, and that certainly is going to be
necessary to correct. We all know that most of the African-
American teachers graduated from these institutions and the one
thing that we need for the future is students who are literate
in science and math. In my district, we have the number one
institution, high school, in the country for science and
engineering, scoring higher than any other high school in the
country. But we are turning students away because of the lack
of space. When we ask about getting assistance, it is clear
that there is hardly anyplace to go. This has been an area that
I came here concerned with because I saw Texas Instruments
start from scratch and become a worldwide business, and several
others, ADS, and we had the largest number of H-1B visa
employees than anyplace else in the country because we were not
producing the talent that is needed in the area. So the
correction is certainly needed.
I have an historically black college in my district who has
never received anything from the National Science Foundation.
And I realize that, originally, the bill was set to be in
Commerce. I think, correctly, it should be in the National
Science Foundation. And I believe that the people there are
willing to attempt to adjust to see that the problems are taken
care of. We have had conversations about it, but we do need
some concrete guidelines to be sure of that. When you look at
the difference, it is just alarming. And so I will work with
you to see that we have the proper language in whatever bill
that does move to make sure that these problems are addressed.
And I thank you for your efforts.
Mr. Towns. Right. And let me assure you as well, the last
thing I want to do is slow this bill down. That I don't want to
do. I want to make certain, you know, that we fix certain
things that are broken, and that is my concern. And as soon as
we could do that, you know, we could move it forward. I am not
interested in terms of, you know, creating any kind of
slowdown. I want to make that very, very clear, Mr. Chairman.
But I do want to make certain that some of those institutions
that have been left out are able to be pulled in. So thank you
very much for the opportunity.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. As I understand it, there are about 400
minority serving institutions. We are talking about 250
million. To adequately accommodate some of the needs, it is
going to take maybe $2 or $3 million at some of these
institutions. Give us your ideas. As we sort of left--the
legislation leaves this a little open-ended on how we make the
decision of which institution gets the funds. But obviously, we
are not going to be able to--if you simply divide the $250
million to all 400 schools, then it is not going to be the kind
of dollars that are necessary to accommodate the needs if they
are going to be effective in accomplishing our goals, it seems
to me. Any thoughts on how you decide which schools get the
grants?
Mr. Towns. If we have a good peer review team, I think that
they would be able to be helpful. Also----
Chairman Smith. If a need based on their effort to----
Mr. Towns. Look at needs, but also, Mr. Chairman, I am
hoping that we will come to the realization that additional
money is needed. If we are serious about, you know, making
certain that we are able to compete, then we might have to look
at additional dollars. But I think that with additional dollars
and with the peer review team looking at these universities and
their needs, I really feel that, you know, we can do a much
better job. In terms of, you know, how we get them, if we put
together the right kind of team, I think they can answer a lot
of our questions, really, and a lot of our concerns if we have
that. The point is that that is so crucial. That is key in
terms of having people that are sensitive to what is going on
out here, and to be able to reach out to some of these other
schools.
And also, to let us begin to fight for additional money.
Additional resources, you know, are needed. If we are going to
say, leave no child behind, and then cut the budget, then leave
all the children behind, I mean, something is wrong with that
kind of thinking. So we have to now recognize the fact that if
we are serious about leaving no child behind, we have to do all
the kind of things to make certain they are not left behind.
And I am hoping that you and the other members will begin to
fight, you know, for that, and I think that we should because
it is the appropriate thing to do. I mean, if we are going to
be the leaders, we should exemplify that in terms of our
commitment to the cause.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Forbes, did you have a question?
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any additional
questions.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Towns, thank you very much.
Mr. Towns. Thank you.
Panel II
Chairman Smith. If Panel II would come to the table? A
brief introduction, Dr. Fred Humphries is the President of the
National Association for Equal Opportunity and Higher
Education. And Dr. Humphries, prior to joining the NAFEO, Dr.
Humphries served as President of Texas A&M and--pardon?
Dr. Humphries. Florida A&M.
Chairman Smith. Florida A&M. Thank you. And also, Tennessee
State University, for a total of what we have in our records as
more than 27 years. So Dr. Humphries, thank you very much for
giving your time to the Committee this morning.
Ricardo Fernandez is the President of Herbert H. Lehman
College, the CUNY, and he will be testifying on behalf of the
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. And prior to
CUNY, Dr. Fernandez served at the University of Wisconsin,
beginning as an Assistant Professor of Cultural Foundations and
rising to full Professor and Assistant Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs. Dr. Fernandez, welcome to our Committee.
Dr. Larry Earvin is the President of the Huston-Tillotson
College in Texas, and he will be testifying on behalf of the
United Negro College Fund [UNCF].
And Dr. Dwight Fennell is the President of Paul Quinn
College in Texas. And prior to joining Paul Quinn, Dr. Fennell
worked as an American Council on Education fellow, and he
served on various capacities in the St. Augustine College, and
his duties ranged from Assistant History Professor to Vice
President for Academic Affairs.
So Representative Johnson, Texas is represented today in
your behalf. Would you like to make any additional introductory
comments?
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the panelists. I
support what they stand for, what they are here for. I have
worked with them. We have even discussed this bill in detail
and I look forward to their testimony. I think they can offer
us an idea of how we might be able to structure what dollars we
do have to cover as much ground as we can. And I appreciate the
fact that we have at least two Texans here. You know, we have a
very, very large potential college enrollment in Texas,
probably one of the State's largest, and so it is significant
that we have two Texans here, besides, Texas being a leading
state. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. It almost makes me wish we had somebody
here from Michigan. Project Hope, by the way, I need to get you
to Michigan to visit our Project Hope in Detroit.
Dr. Humphries--for the record, everybody's total testimony
will be included in the record. We will ask you to come close,
between five and seven minutes, wherever you are comfortable.
Dr. Humphries, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. FREDERICK S. HUMPHRIES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Dr. Humphries. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Humphries, there is a button there.
Dr. Humphries. Okay. It shows you we need technology help.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the House Science
Committee, Subcommittee on Research, I am the Chief Executive
Officer of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in
Higher Education, NAFEO. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to participate in the hearing on H.R. 2183, the
Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Act, as introduced by Representative Randy Forbes.
H.R. 2183 would establish within the National Science
Foundation an Office of Minority Serving Institution Digital
and Wireless Technology. The purpose of this office will be to
strengthen the ability of minority serving institutions to
provide a capacity for instruction in digital and wireless
network technologies by providing grants to, or executing
contracts or cooperative agreements with, those institutions to
provide such instruction; and (2) strengthen the national
digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing the national
investment in telecommunication and technology infrastructure
at minority serving institutions.
Very similar legislation, H.R. 2272, has been introduced in
the House of Representatives by Representative Edolphus Towns,
and in the Senate, Senator George Allen has introduced Senate
Bill 196. The introduction of each of these measures
collectively reflect the vision, understanding, and leadership
needs to close the digital divide and to stimulate national
awareness and involvement in this area.
NAFEO is the umbrella organization of the historical black
colleges and universities and the predominantly black colleges
in the United States of America. Our colleges span from Texas
to Florida, to Massachusetts, and from New York to California.
We have 118 member institutions, 450,000 students, largely
African-American, attend these institutions. They are 46
percent public and 54 percent private, the membership of NAFEO.
The organization's membership is comprised of two-year and
four-year institutions, and the schools that offer advanced and
professional degrees, they are public and private, large and
small, urban and rural, liberal arts, agricultural, and
research. We embrace the whole scope of the institutions that
consider themselves predominantly black or HBCUs in the United
States of America.
There are two major dimensions to the digital divide: (1)
Providing access to information technology; and (2) expanding
the application and use of information technology. We think the
$250 million, hopefully, will be done annually; not in just a
one-single shot to solve the problem, but to do it annually.
And that the level of funding, about $2.5 million per
institution, to support the eight broad categorical areas that
are introduced by the bill is just about right to really make a
significant dent in the project for those schools that actually
get the grant from the National Science Foundation. We support
the idea of an advisory council and we support the idea of a
peer review system wherein the peer review team comes from the
institutions that will be served by the money that is granted
from the National Science Foundation.
You asked that I address three specific questions, and I
will direct my attention directly to that. The first question
being what were the findings of the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration funded report, entitled,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of
Networking and Connectivity? What do these findings mean for
graduates of historical black colleges and universities? We
found that approximately 75 percent of the students attending
the historical black colleges and universities do not own their
own computers. The national average is about 50 percent; one
out of two will own their computers across the higher education
spectrum. So we have a really serious deficiency in our student
body simply because students are poor, they come from poor
families, and they cannot afford to buy a computer. And our
financial aid allocation under the Title IV [of the Higher
Education Act] programs of our government do not provide enough
support that if you included a computer in the allocation of
need, you couldn't fund it anyway, because the money that is
appropriated in Title IV [of the Higher Education Act] does not
meet the need today without a computer, of the needs of the
student. So there is an insufficiency in funding to address the
need. And if you just add a computer on top of that, you are
exacerbating the lack of funding for the students.
Approximately, 88 percent of the historical black colleges
have access to T-1 lines from their campuses, and therefore,
the more sophisticated and the more demanding technology that
is present, the state of the art that is operational in our
society today, cannot be accommodated by the existence of just
one T-1 line. So there is an insufficiency in communicating
with the world, being a part of a global interconnectivity that
is enjoyed in our society. We have very limited connection with
the outside world. Only about 13 percent network with K through
12 school districts, a concern that you have had, Mr. Chairman;
20 percent with the Federal Government and only five percent
with commercial vendors.
One of the major things that need to be addressed is that
as you advance in the technology holdings of your campus, as
you become wireless, and as you add the fiber optic backbone to
your campus, and as you connect up all of your buildings, and
put facilities in dormitories, and add the T-1 line, supporting
connectivity with the outer world, comes with that the
requirement that you have the kind of sufficiency in terms of
human resources that will deal with having the technical
expertise that can maintain that system. And I can tell you
that hardly any of our institutions have the capability or the
money to provide the human resources that are required to
operate at the state of the art level today in technology. So
one of the big needs we have as we cross this digital divide is
the ability to support the infrastructure in terms of human
resource people to do that.
There is a requirement for maintenance and replacement of
installed technology. We have to train people, the
administration and the faculty, so that they can do distance
learning courses and so that they can use technology in the
actual instruction in their classrooms and be responsive to a
student body that is doing that. Today, the average modality of
our institutions in responding to technology and the absence of
computer on the part of our students is that we set up computer
laboratories. And if you were to visit one of our campuses, you
would see those laboratories are completely active all day
long. But it is not enough. It does not get to the point that
you raised, Mr. Chairman, of providing the first rate
technological instruction that makes our students competitive
when they enter the world outside of those colleges, that they
are up to snuff, know what the other people know, and can
compete on an even level.
So this bill, if it is passed, will do a lot to alleviating
that question. So we recommend for a very important reason that
this bill and the fund, the program, be placed with the
National Science Foundation. The reason for that is we think a
lot of minorities going into the building out there in
Arlington at the National Science Foundation will help them
understand that they need to put more minorities in the other
programs that they have, and there will be occasions that they
will have a chance to discuss with a whole lot of people at NSF
the need to have more minority involvement instead of the one
plus percent that is in the other programs of the National
Science. So the more minorities we see go into that building,
the better we think it is for science and technology at the
minority serving institutions. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Humphries follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frederick S. Humphries
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the House Science
Committee, Subcommittee on Research, I am Dr. Frederick S. Humphries,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Association for
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO). First, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing on H.R. 2183,
the Minority Serving Institutions Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Act. As introduced by Representative Randy Forbes (R-VA),
H.R. 2183 would establish within the National Science Foundation an
Office of Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology.
The purposes of this Office will be to (1) strengthen the ability of
Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) to provide capacity for
instruction in digital and wireless network technologies by providing
grants to, or executing contracts or cooperative agreements with, those
institutions to provide such instruction; and (2) strengthen the
national digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing national
investment in telecommunications and technology infrastructure at MSIs.
Very similar legislation, H.R. 2272 has been introduced in the
House of Representatives by Representative Edolphus Towns (D-NY); and,
in the Senate, Senator George Allen (R-VA) has introduced S. 196. The
introduction of each of these measures collectively reflects a vision,
understanding and leadership needed to close the digital divide and to
stimulate national awareness and involvement in this area.
As the CEO of NAFEO and a former college president, I believe this
hearing is an exemplary way to acknowledge the contributions and
relevance of MSIs, and the leadership we have provided in national
policy development, particularly in the science and technology areas.
Our inclusion and participation in this process of policy formation is
a most necessary exercise, if we, as a community of stakeholders and
leaders, are to succeed in meeting and overcoming the challenges before
us. Moreover, the ultimate enactment of this legislation will put MSIs
in a position to better address national science and technology (S&T)
and workforce objectives, including engaging those communities where
the digital divide is most serious. I am sure that this hearing will
hasten a dialogue and implementation of programs that are long overdue.
NAFEO'S ROLE AND MISSION
BACKGROUND--As background, let me begin by describing NAFEO's
mission and role in this discussion. NAFEO serves as the national
umbrella organization for more than 100 predominately and Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Our mission is to champion the
interests of our member institutions through the executive, legislative
and judicial branches of Federal and State Government. For more than
three decades, we have played a pivotal role in articulating the needs
for a system of higher education where race, ethnicity, socio-economic
status, and previous educational attainment levels are not determinants
of either the quantity or quality of higher education. The organization
takes lead responsibility for the development and dissemination of
public policies, programmatic efforts, and strategic and educational
materials that: (1) enhance the role of HBCUs, generally, and (2)
promote African American student enrollment and attainment,
specifically. NAFEO is comprised of institutions of higher education
that represent a broad spectrum of interests--public and private, large
and small, urban and rural, liberal arts, agricultural, and research.
Of the HBCUs that belong to NAFEO, 46 percent are public, and 54
percent are private. The organization's membership is comprised of two-
year and four-year institutions, as well as schools that offer advanced
and professional degrees, and they are situated in every quarter of the
country, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.
HISTORICAL MANDATE AND SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS--At the time of
Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education and the end of de jure segregation
in the public schools, but not the end of racially exclusive, whites-
only systems of higher education in the South or nearly all-white
systems of higher education in the north, HBCUs were producing more
that 90 percent of all Black baccalaureates and more than 90 percent of
all Blacks who went on to become doctors, lawyers, and Ph.D.s. Now,
HBCUs still enroll the largest concentration of both the well and under
prepared African American students, many of whom come from high poverty
school systems and low-income families. While HBCUs enroll
approximately 16 percent of all African American undergraduate
students, these institutions graduate about 30 percent of all African
Americans who complete their baccalaureate degrees annually. HBCUs are
the largest producers of African American teachers and baccalaureates
in science and technology. Additionally, a higher percentage of Black
Ph.D. candidates from HBCUs complete their degrees than those from non-
HBCUs, 42 percent each year, to be exact. We also are building our
Ph.D. programs to address the undersupply of African Americans in the
science and technology fields as well as expanding our capacities to
offer professional degree programs.
The enrollment and graduation rates of these institutions are most
sensitive to even the slightest shifts in state and federal policies
affecting college admission, retention, and completion. Therefore, for
the last 40 years, HBCUs have served as the barometer that gives the
earliest and most reliable indicators of whether new educational
policies instituted by federal, State, or private sector policy-makers
will advance or retard the movement toward equality of educational
opportunity. Undoubtedly, the appropriation of federal dollars and the
development of federal policies specifically targeting HBCUs have
assisted greatly in meeting national goals of expanding educational and
workforce opportunities for all Americans, but particularly for African
Americans. The legislation we address today is a welcome and overdue
installment in our collective efforts to meet the worthy national
objectives related to increasing opportunities for all Americans.
H.R. 2183 AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS
There are two major dimensions to the digital divide: (1) providing
access to information technology (IT) and (2) expanding the application
and use of information technology. H.R. 2183 seeks to address both of
these issues and helps to remedy the issue of the digital divide that
exists among HBCUs and other MSIs as well as the communities they
serve. The bill seeks to strengthen the institutional capacity by
authorizing $250 million annually (providing up to $2.5 million per
institution) in support of eight broad categorical objectives.\1\ The
Forbes, Towns and Allen versions of the bill each include these eight
categorical objectives under Section 3--Activities Supported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (1) To acquire the equipment, instrumentation, networking
capability, hardware and software, digital network technology, wireless
technology, and infrastructure; (2) to develop and provide educational
services, including faculty development, related to science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology; (3) to provide teacher
education, library and media specialist training, and preschool and
teacher aid certification to individuals who seek to acquire or enhance
technology skills in order to use technology in the classroom or
instructional process; (4) to implement joint projects and consortia to
provide education regarding technology in the classroom with a State or
State education agency, local education agency, community-based
organization, national non-profit organization, or business, including
minority businesses; (5) to provide professional development in
science, mathematics, engineering, or technology to administrators and
faculty of eligible institutions with institutional responsibility for
technology education; (6) to provide capacity-building technical
assistance to eligible institutions through remote technical support,
technical assistance workshops, distance learning, new technologies,
and other technological applications; (7) to foster the use of
information communications technology to increase scientific,
mathematical, engineering, and technology instruction and research; and
(8) to develop proposals to be submitted under this Act and to develop
strategic plans for information technology investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, H.R. 2183 calls for the establishment of an Advisory
Council; dissemination of information annually to further capacity
building and collaboration; a matching requirement with a possibility
of waiver in certain circumstances; and annual reports and evaluation.
QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY RAISED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO BE ADDRESSED
In preparation for today's hearings, Chairman Nick Smith (R-MI)
specifically asked that three issues be addressed. They are:
What were the findings of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration funded
report, entitled Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
An Assessment of Networking and Connectivity? What do those
findings mean for graduates of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs)?
What are the most important technology issues for
HBCUs? How will H.R. 2183 help meet those unmet needs?
How do HBCUs currently fund their technology
infrastructure? What is the source of that support (Federal,
State, local, private)?
Each question is addressed below.
What were the findings of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration funded report, entitled Historically Black
Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of Networking and
Connectivity? What do those findings mean for graduates of Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)?
In 2000, with the support of the Department of Commerce, NAFEO
completed a study entitled Historically Black Colleges and
Universities: An Assessment of Networking and Connectivity (see
appendix). The study attempted to address a set of fundamental
questions, e.g., ``Where are HBCUs on the Information Super Highway?
Are they on the side of the road, the on-ramp, or speeding along in the
fast lanes?'' The project conducted an assessment related to a broad
spectrum of issues, including computer ownership, student/faculty
access, connectivity, capacity, facilities, web-based services,
distance learning and multi-media. Of 118 HBCUs surveyed, 80
participated.
There are several significant findings included in the study. For
instance, half of the HBCUs surveyed did not have computers available
in the location most accessible to students--their dormitories.
Additionally, 80 percent of the computers on HBCU campuses are owned by
the institution itself. Administrators and faculty are in the second
category of ownership while students own the fewest. The study notes
that one technology professor at a four-year, rural, public HBCU
observed, ``We have a number of computer labs at our University that
are open seven days a week, 24-hours a day. One of our labs has 60
computers and its packed all day every day.'' In addition to these
findings related to access and ownership, it is relevant to note that
in those exceptional instances when we can identify students at HBCUs
that own their own computers, they oftentimes own seriously outdated or
incompatible equipment. Other findings included in the Department of
Commerce study, which appear in the appendix and hereby are
incorporated by reference, include the following:
Approximately 75 percent of students attending HBCUs
do not own their own computers and must rely on institutional
resources to connect to the Internet, World Wide Web, or other
networks. Contrast this finding with the 1999 Campus Computing
Study, which reports that among all institutions of higher
education, 49 percent, or about one out of every two students
personally own their own desktop or notebook computers.
Most HBCUs do not have high-speed connectivity to the
Internet and World Wide Web. Only three percent of these
colleges and universities indicated that financial aid was
available to help their students close the ``computer ownership
gap.''
Approximately 88 percent of HBCUs have access to T-1
lines from their local ISPs and operating companies and connect
to their networks using single or multiple T-1 lines. However,
a single T-1 line is not sufficient to provide a large campus
with effective bandwidth for 21st century connectivity. The
more bandwidth capacity an HBCU has, the more possibilities
that institution may have for participation in advanced
projects such as Internet2, which may be one of the key areas
that hold back HBCUs from making the digital leap into this
century.
Extensive connectivity to a global community appears
to be underutilized among HBCUs. Connectivity beyond the campus
borders only extends to regional and/or statewide networks, or
in a few instances to the Federal Government.
Out of the 80 HBCUs responding to the Commerce study,
only 31 percent indicate that they network with state college
systems, 13 percent network with the K-12 school districts, 20
percent with the Federal Government, and 5 percent with
commercial vendors.
What these findings reveal is that while ``HBCUs are not in the
`dark ages' of networking and connectivity by providing access for
students and faculty to the Internet and World Wide Web,'' they do
raise conclusive concerns that ``the strategies to upgrade and improve
network systems are generally weak.'' Additionally, HBCUs have
insufficient resources to assist students close the ``computer
ownership gap.'' It is clear from the NAFEO study that absent proactive
steps at the federal level to provide critical resources, the vast
majority of HBCUs, their students, faculty, administrators and the
communities they serve will be forced to operate on the periphery of
the parameters that define the digital divide, or fall into a
permanently disabling gulf of limited or no access.
What are the most important technology issues for HBCUs? How will H.R.
2183 help meet those unmet needs?
Many of the technology issues facing HBCUs were addressed in the
Department of Commerce-sponsored study referenced above that was
conducted by NAFEO. Connectivity, ownership, access, strategic
planning, distance learning, and the infrastructure needed to support
more advanced research and development activities are all areas where
additional resources are needed. A short selection of certain key areas
of concern can be summarized as follows:
One of the single largest information-technology
problems that colleges and universities must address is the
need to assist faculty members in their efforts to integrate
technology into instruction. There is a tremendous need for
professional development and training.
Every HBCU should have a plan and the resources to
help faculty develop the skills and knowledge that will allow
them to keep pace with the expectations of their students.
HBCUs also need qualified technical staff and
information technology specialists to help develop strategic
plans and manage the operation of information technology
systems. A focus must be on ensuring connectivity to other
HBCUs, majority institutions, state and local agencies,
industry and beyond the federal agencies.
A critical need that separates low technology
resource institutions from mainstream institutions is the
availability and quality of Help Desk and on-site technical
support for users and for the overall network/IT system
reliability. These support services are ongoing, continuing
costs associated with any successful operation.
Maintenance and replacement of installed technology
is a continuing cost that can approximate 10-15 percent of the
total cost of the installed technology base on a campus. This
includes costs associated with software and hardware.
HBCU administrators need training and IT resources to
manage complex data gathering, financial aid, accounting and
other management processes, including Enterprise Resources
Planning Systems/Enterprise Document Management/Data
Warehousing systems to facilitate planning, accountability and
quality responses to requests for data and reports from
internal managers and government agencies.
Many HBCUs are without sufficient bandwidth required
for 21st Century connectivity. Specifically, institutional-wide
access, i.e., students, faculty and researchers to Internet
resources requires multi-megabit bandwidth by institutions,
which is very costly. These bandwidth needs continue to
escalate.
Our students are without regular and timely access to
quality computers.
Facilities and equipment are outdated or otherwise
ill-equipped to accommodate state-of the-art IT requirements.
Resources for renovation and updating equipment are needed.
Network security and protection of critical data to
enable uninterrupted and secure transactions is a national
issue. Current requirements, including network audits,
performance analyses, installation of sophisticated firewalls
and other intrusion detection systems are very costly. A
performance analysis alone, on average at HBCUs, costs an
estimated $100,000. Intrusion detection systems can cost up to
$300,000.
Resources to enable the planning, testing and
implementation of disaster recovery and business continuity
programs.
Even more specifically, on page two of the NAFEO study, it is noted
that in order for HBCUs to successfully leap across the digital divide
into the 21st Century, there will need to be a focus on institutional
resources to address several areas of weakness: (1) improvement of
high-speed connectivity rates; (2) dramatic improvement of student to
computer ownership ratios; (3) improvement of the strategic planning
process; and (4) willingness to incorporate innovative technologies
into campus networks.
H.R. 2183 attempts to meet these needs by providing significant
flexibility in the permissible use of funds, and the way in which funds
can be awarded. Under the legislation, eight possible categories of use
of funds have been identified. Funding can be awarded by grant,
contract or cooperative agreement. Additionally, the bill will allow
the appointment of an Advisory Council. In designating appointments to
the Council, NAFEO recommends that a representative from each MSI
community be appointed and that any competitive proposals be peer-
reviewed by persons from these communities.
Turning to the issue of peer-review, NAFEO asks that H.R. 2183 be
amended to incorporate language included in Representative Towns' bill,
H.R. 2272, Section 4. Under Section 4 of the Towns bill, language is
included that separates the function of a peer-review panel from that
of the Advisory Council. NAFEO deems it imperative that, in making
competitive grant awards, representatives of the communities to be
served be included in the review and award processes. These individuals
will bring a distinct familiarity and understanding of the special
challenges MSIs face related to IT.
Finally, the one area not addressed in H.R. 2183 (or the other
versions of the legislation), which the NAFEO study identifies as an
area of critical need, is the student to computer ownership ratio. In
response to this particular finding related to the paucity of HBCU
students who own a computer, NAFEO has drafted a proposal to provide
every fully Pell eligible freshman at an HBCU with a computer that they
would keep through matriculation. The estimated cost is about $20
million annually. We ask the committee to support the Freshman Computer
initiative, either through the appropriations or authorization
processes.
How do HBCUs currently fund their technology infrastructure? What is
the source of that support (Federal, State, local, private)?
The HBCU community is pursuing all possible avenues of funding to
support the building of its technology infrastructure. Federal, State,
local and private resources have been secured to bring us where we are.
However, funding patterns have been sporadic, fragmented and
insufficient to meet the needs of the community. Therefore,
comprehensive, strategic and coordinated assistance at the federal
level is needed.
At the federal level, there are several competitive grant programs
that support IT and related equipment acquisition efforts at
institutions of higher education generally. Typically, HBCUs receive
few of these dollars. In some instances, competition is keen, and the
dollars available are small. In other instances, program descriptions
often exclude HBCUs by targeting the larger, more advanced research
institutions. Consider also, that the NSF reports that in 2001,
institutions of higher education received $19.1 billion for federally
supported research and development activities. Of this amount, 100
HBCUs only received $261.9 million, about 1.3 percent of the total.
Compare this to the $879.7 million federal R&D funding received by
Johns Hopkins alone in the same year. This data is significant because,
the funding of R&D also affords institutions of higher education access
to indirect costs that can then be used to support a number of facility
enhancing activities, including IT. In this light, it appears that the
under-representation of HBCUs in the federally funded R&D area,
undoubtedly, has helped to exacerbate the digital divide.
As another example, in reviewing awards made as a part of the NSF
Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarships (CSEMS)\2\
program, in 2000 and 2001, there appears to be an under-participation
of HBCUs. In 2000, HBCUs received 6.9 percent of the total awards. By
2001, HBCU participation had dropped to 6 percent, while funding for
the overall program more than doubled--increasing from about $24
million to over $50 million. Funding for HBCUs, during that period
increased by $100,000 (going from $1.4 million to $1.5 million), but
the number of schools participating declined. The most significant and
consistent source of federal funding, with the greatest flexibility and
broadest coverage across the HBCU community probably is the Title III,
Part B--Strengthening Institutional Capacity Program, funded by the
Department of Education. However, these funds, averaging between
$500,000 to $1 million, can be used for a multiplicity of purposes and
often are used to address other pressing campus needs. Other HBCU
specific accounts, cutting across the federal spectrum have been useful
also. Federal funding, unfortunately, over the years, has not kept pace
with the actual needs of the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The CSMES program provides grants to post-secondary academic
institutions to fund scholarship for academically talented, financially
needy students seeking a degree in computer science, computer
technology, engineering technology, or mathematics. CSMES is funded
from a $1,000 fee that employer pay for each temporary foreign
professional employee who enters the U.S. through the H-1B visa
program. The 1998 Act allocated 28.2 percent of the H-1B fees to CSMES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the State level, public HBCUs typically receive funding from
their state legislatures. Historically, there have been disparate
funding patterns that have caused many of these institutions to receive
less than majority institutions located in the same states. This
historic disparity has resulted in the provision of inadequate
resources to support IT and many other activities. Some states,
particularly in the South are now under court order and consent decrees
to provide redress; but, with tightening budgets and historic
shortfalls in many states, HBCUs also are feeling the pinch of budget
cuts. Private HBCUs, on the other hand, typically receive no support at
the state level. Many of these schools have church affiliations that
have inadequate resources to keep up with the growing demands in the IT
area.
Turning to the private sector, companies such as Gateway Computer
Corporation, Microsoft and others have created alliances with HBCUs and
offer equipment, software and other services at a discount. For
example, for more than two years, the Gateway Computer Corporation has
partnered with NAFEO to establish a comprehensive digital divide
initiative. The agreement between the organizations enables the
acquisition of computing resources, including personal computers,
laptops, printers, hardware, and computer services (such as networking
and technical support). Partial proceeds from purchases related to this
initiative fund efforts at HBCUs related to ending the disparities that
contribute to the digital divide. These efforts, while relevant, fall
short of meeting the complex and critical IT challenges confronting
HBCUs.
NAFEO'S RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM FEDERAL POLICY OBJECTIVES
As the subcommittee continues deliberations on H.R. 2183 and
related measures, NAFEO asks the subcommittee to adopt policies that
foster a positive environment for the achievement of the following
long-term goals that endeavor to:
Strengthen the capacity of HBCUs to participate in
the national effort to improve the Nation's technology and
telecommunications infrastructure and research enterprise;
Improve the quality of education for students
attending HBCUs, by encouraging policies and leadership that
support the telecommunications infrastructure necessary for
campus wide connectivity and workforce productivity, including
student computer ownership;
Strengthen NAFEO's capabilities and role as a
national service organization that provides research,
evaluation, and dissemination of information about
telecommunications and technology infrastructure to HBCUs and
minority institutions;
Enable HBCUs to realize their potential as a major
resource for meeting national goals related to the development
and retooling of the current science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM) domestic workforce.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A Department of Commerce report published just last month, June
2003, entitled Education and Training for the Information Technology
Workforce, p. ii, notes the ``[w]idespread deployment of digital
technologies throughout the Nation and our ongoing transformation to a
knowledge-based economy have created strong demand for workers who can
create, apply and use information technologies (IT).'' It also notes
that employers generally seek candidates with post-secondary education
for professional-level IT jobs. A four-year degree, especially a
technical degree, helps an IT professional get a foot in the door and
get promoted. Two-thirds of IT workers have at least a four-year
degree, and the percentage of college-educated workers is growing.
HBCUs have been the trailblazers and standard bearers for equal
opportunity and have been the beacons of light for African American
communities for over 150 years, and they provide the optimum venue to
help this nation remedy problems associated with the digital divide.
Without these institutions, this nation would not have African American
participation in the professions, the military, the legislatures, and
in business. Clearly, it is in the best national interest to seize the
opportunity to more fully utilize HBCUs to address the crises of the
digital divide in African American communities and other communities of
color. As stated previously, favorable consideration of H.R. 2183 is a
step in that direction. This legislation will offer a significant
opportunity for those institutions serving the largest concentrations
of the Nation's minority and low-income students to keep pace with the
advancing technologies of the 21st century.
Additionally, passage of H.R. 2183 will serve as a catalyst that
promotes a technological and research trend that is so desperately
needed at these institutions. It will go a long way in promoting the
establishment of a technology-based curriculum that enables HBCUs to
recruit, retain, and graduate students who are more competitive in the
increasingly technology-based global economy and in the graduate and
professional institutions. It will allow HBCUs to have more involvement
in basic research to develop new technologies, which is the most
desirable and effective method for assuring that HBCUs have the amount
and level of technology needed for their administration, academic
programs, student usages, and community outreach. It also will assist
HBCUs in working with IT corporations and efforts to have them
``mentor'' HBCUs. For instance, consistent with provisions contained in
the measure, major companies could adopt one college and work with the
institution in assessing and implementing long-term IT strategies.
Ultimately, this funding will allow the institutions to access and
increase their individual technology needs, thereby making them more
competitive.
CONCLUSION
Clearly, the provisions of H.R.2183 address almost all of the
technology deficiencies identified in the NAFEO study by providing
grants up to $2.5 million for each eligible institution to address
technology needs related to infrastructure, networking, faculty
development and student preparation, teacher education and media
specialist training, community outreach, and leadership development.
Such aid will not only strengthen HBCU technological capabilities, but
also enhance inter-institutional relationships and community outreach.
With the assistance of H.R. 2183 and related legislation currently
under this committee's consideration, HBCUs and other MSIs would truly
become leaders in helping to close the digital divide, which is widest
in the communities we serve.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are some proponents of fiscal
constraint who may be concerned about the $250 million proposed
authorization level contained in H.R. 2183 and related measures. Some
say the price tag is too high. Those of us in the MSI community would
argue, the proposed level of funding is not high enough. But, we
recognize it is a tremendous step in the right direction and will
assist communities that have achieved unparalleled success related to
transforming seed investments into fields of dreams and accomplishment.
By making a reasonable investment now at the federal level, there will
be significant economies of scale and costs savings in the long run.
Many MSIs (and the communities they serve) will become more self-
sufficient; our graduates will make more productive contributions to
the national economy; and compelling federal objectives will be met. On
the other hand, failure to commit sufficient resources to this effort
will cause irreparable harm, not only to MSIs, but also to the Nation
as a whole.
This concludes my testimony. Again, on behalf of the National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education and its member
institutions, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Biography for Frederick S. Humphries
Frederick S. Humphries took office as the 4th President of the
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education on
January 1, 2002.
His selection by the organization's Board of Directors and the
Council of Presidents marked the culmination of an intensive and
exhaustive six-month national search. A renowned scholar and admired
public servant, Dr. Humphries, a chemist by training, has had a
distinguished, 27 year career as President of Florida A&M and Tennessee
State Universities.
During his nearly 17 year tenure at Florida A&M, he more than
doubled enrollment while simultaneously raising academic standards. He
increased the number of National Achievement Scholars at the school
ranking first in the Nation three times, out recruiting Harvard and
Stanford, and made Florida A&M the Nation's number one producer of
African-Americans with baccalaureate degrees and third in the Nation as
the baccalaureate institution of origin for African-American doctoral
degree recipients. He also increased Florida A&M's sponsored research
by 17,705 percent, tops among historically and predominately Black
colleges and universities and third in the 11 member State University
System of Florida.
A tireless fundraiser, Dr. Humphries also raised more than $60
million dollars for FAMU, making the University's endowment the largest
of the Nation's public Historically Black Colleges.
At NAFEO, Dr. Humphries has worked diligently to raise the profile
of the Nation's 118 historically and predominately Black colleges. He
has fought vigorously for increased resources and the expansion of
programs at NAFEO member institutions.
As the public policy advocacy organization for the Nation's Black
colleges, NAFEO, has been re-energized by Dr. Humphries' presence.
A national treasure, Dr. Humphries is respected throughout the
Nation for his keen insights on the education of minority students,
particularly in math and the hard sciences, and his unique and
visionary approaches to producing successful educational outcomes.
Corporate America has also sought his expertise as a member of the
Board of Directors of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Brinker International
(the parent company of Chili's Grill & Bar, On The Border Mexican Grill
& Cantina, Maggiano's Little Italy, Cozymel's Coastal Grill, Corner
Bakery Cafe, Big Bowl Asian Kitchen and Rockfish Seafood Grill
restaurants).
Born in Apalachicola, Florida, Dr. Humphries received a Bachelor of
Science degree in chemistry, magna cum laude, from Florida A&M
University and a Ph.D. degree in physical chemistry from the University
of Pittsburgh. He is married to Antoinette McTurner Humphries. They are
the parents of three grown children and the proud grandparents of four
grandchildren.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Humphries, thank you. Dr. Hernandez.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICARDO R. FERNANDEZ, PRESIDENT, HERBERT H.
LEHMAN COLLEGE-CUNY
Dr. Fernandez. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Representative Johnson, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee on Research. I am honored to testify on behalf of
the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities and the
Hispanic higher education community in support of H.R. 2272 and
2183, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Network Technology Opportunities Act of 2003.
My name is Ricardo Fernandez and I am in my 13th year as
President of Herbert H. Lehman College of the City University
of New York. Lehman is a four-year comprehensive public
institution located in Bronx County, New York. We are also
federally designated as a Hispanic servicing institution, one
of six, I believe, or seven in the City University system.
I applaud the leadership of the Senate which unanimously
passed S. 196 in April. I had the pleasure of testifying before
Senator Allen and his Committee on this very same legislation,
and I would urge this committee to support this legislation as
the most effective means to serve the urgent technology
education needs of HSIs and minority serving institutions in
general, in serving the youngest in our case, a very growing
population.
I would like to just mention that HSIs are a growing and
important resource for providing advanced knowledge and skills
to Hispanics and to other populations. For example, in my own
institution, Lehman College, we have--44 percent of our
students are Latinos, but 33 percent of the students are
African-Americans. St. Philip's College in Texas is designated
both as an HSI and an historically black college and
university. Such diversity within the student population at
HSIs is not atypical; especially, at HSIs in diverse urban
regions of the country. So any initiative aiding some of these
institutions benefits other minority students that also attend
these HSIs.
Mention was made earlier that there are more than 200
designated institutions as HSIs. That means that they have to
have a full-time equivalent student enrollment of at least 25
percent Hispanic. There are, I would note, also, about 100
institutions that are emerging as HSIs. That is, their student
enrollment is growing, so we expect that there will be more of
these institutions. Half of all Latino students attend HSIs,
and about 50 percent of the teachers that are trained are
Latino teachers that are trained at these institutions.
You asked in the letter of invitation that three specific
questions be answered. I would like to focus the bulk of my
comments on those to give you a sense of how this impacts an
institution and how we are handling that within the City
University.
At Lehman--you asked what are the most important technology
issues, and I want to focus on three of them. One of them is a
lack of an appropriate information technology infrastructure
and equipment. Second is a lack of a strategic IT plan, and
thirdly, faculty development in the use of IT for teaching,
learning, and research. At our own institution, in the past we
have focused on cabling our buildings with copper wire. Now we
are moving to change that to get fiber optic across every
building, not just in every building but, ultimately, in every
room in that building. We have been able to do that to some
extent, but we still have a ways to go. We are more and more
now experimenting with wireless technology. We have six
facilities where we have wireless capability. We estimate we
need about 30 more facilities in our institution.
We have been working for the last three years on a
multimedia center. We have received funding from the State and
the City for about $10 million for the renovation of some
facilities. We are still lacking about $3 million in equipment
and we see the funds that would be awarded under this type of
legislation as possibly coming partially from these funds.
We have recently installed a smart lab. That is a two-way
interactive with video and audio facility. We estimated that
that cost us about $45,000. We want to use these for,
particularly, in our teacher training. This enables us to
connect with certain schools in the Bronx in a number of
districts so that we can afford our students who are training
to be teachers to be observing master teachers in the classroom
and become better teachers in areas such as science and
technology.
We have recently installed a science education classroom,
and that is our way of addressing some of the teacher education
needs in New York City and in the Bronx, and we would like to
do more of that, but these funds to purchase the equipment, to
lay cable, to buy and upgrade software, to expand IT
capabilities, such as video-conferencing, to provide wider
access through wireless technology are urgently needed. We do
get State support and local support, however, that support is
being reduced. Tuition is going up, more fees are being charged
to students.
The second question is how are we currently supporting
technology infrastructure. The answer to that is that the
trustees of the City University of New York last year enacted a
student fee of $75 per semester. That yields in our institution
about $1 million a year. Those funds have to be strictly
limited to replacing computers, upgrading software, installing
security measures such as firewalls so that hackers can't come
and damage our data, and to pay staff and provide services to
students. We have gotten, fortunately, some support from the
City and from the State, but these I am afraid are nonrecurring
grants that happen from year to year, not every single year.
And we also have received from the Federal Government, FIPSE
[Fund for the Improvement of Post-secondary Education], NTIA,
NSF, and the Department of Education.
As far as IT planning, one of our major issues--and this is
true of far too many, I think, minority serving institutions--
is that they don't have an information technology strategic
plan. The approach to building information technology
infrastructure is haphazard in many instances, depending on
grants and whatever available funding opportunities are there.
At Lehman, we have recently completed participation in a
program aimed at assisting minority serving institutions. By
the way, it was funded by NSF through EDUCAUSE, and this grant
enabled us to develop a plan and we estimate that this probably
resulted--if we had to do that ourselves, we would have had to
spend about $40,000 doing that. So we have a blueprint now for
IT expansion and development over the next three to five years.
And the focus of our plan is going to be on developing our
infrastructure, on teaching and learning, and on faculty
development.
I might point out one specific example of collaboration
that we have been able to put together involving Lehman and two
of our community colleges in the same borough, Bronx Community
College and Hostos Community College, to give you a sense of
the kinds of partnerships that are possible. Each of us,
independently, were thinking of buying a server to provide
email to our students, because we are running out of space in
our current server. By collaborating and participating in this
partnership, we were able now to buy a single server that is
going to serve all three institutions and is going to result in
some real economies that we can then reprogram and invest in
our core business. This type of collaboration I think is made
possible by IT planning and by help that we have received from
EDUCAUSE, thanks to the funding awarded by NSF for this purpose
in involving in our case three institutions in our borough.
Faculty development is one of the areas that I believe is
very, very significant, that we really need some assistance. We
have a generational gap between older faculty and younger
faculty. Most of our younger faculty come very well
technologically oriented and equipped. They know, they have
grown up with this technology. However, the older faculty, and
still among the younger faculty, we need to integrate
information technology into the curriculum. Our students need
that, and when they get out in the world of work, that is the
kind of environment that they are going to have to function in.
In conclusion, let me just say that we believe that HSIs
have the expertise, the commitment to students to be able to
provide these services, and we urge you to support this
legislation. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fernandez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ricardo R. Fernandez
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Chairman Smith and Distinguished Members of the House
Subcommittee on Research. It is an honor for me to appear here today to
urge your support for legislation of tremendous importance to the
Hispanic higher education community and to our nation's economic
success and security. I speak in support of the Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003,
introduced as H.R. 2183 by the Honorable Randy Forbes of Virginia and
as H.R. 2272, introduced by the Honorable Edolphus Towns of New York.
I am honored to testify on behalf of the Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities (HACU) and the Hispanic higher education
community in support of H.R. 2272 and H.R. 2183, the Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Network Technology Opportunities Act
of 2003.
My name is Ricardo R. Fernandez, and this is my 13th year as
President of Herbert H. Lehman College of the City University of New
York. Lehman College is a four-year comprehensive public institution,
located in Bronx County, New York. Lehman College is a federally
designated Hispanic-Serving Institution.
Additionally, I am Chair of the Board of the American Association
of Higher Education (AAHE), a past Chair and current Board Member of
HACU, and Board Member of the Hispanic Educational Telecommunications
System (HETS)--a consortium of 18 Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs)
engaged in distance education through Internet-focused technologies.
I applaud the leadership of the Senate, which unanimously passed
S.196, the Senate version of H.R. 2272 and H.R. 2183, in April. As
spokesman for the Hispanic higher education community, I urge this
House committee to support H.R. 2272 and H.R. 2183 as the most
effective means to best serve the urgent technology education needs of
HSIs in service to the Nation's youngest and largest ethnic population,
and to serve the urgent technology education needs of all Minority-
Serving Institutions serving the largest concentrations of our
country's fast-growing ``emerging majority'' populations.
OVERVIEW
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) are the Nation's most
important resource for providing advanced knowledge and skills to
Hispanics, the Nation's fastest-growing school age population, and to
other fast-growing minority populations. For example, the student
enrollment at Lehman College is 44 percent Latino and 33 percent black.
St. Philip's College in Texas is designated as both an HSI and a
Historically Black College and University (HBCU). Such diversity within
the student enrollment at HSIs is not atypical, especially at HSIs in
diverse urban regions of the country. Any initiative that aids HSIs
therefore benefits all minority students attending HSIs.
The more than 200 federally designated HSIs, which have a full-time
equivalent student enrollment that is at least 25 percent Hispanic, are
located in the fastest-growing Hispanic population centers in 25 states
and Puerto Rico. Half of all Latino higher education students attend
HSIs. HSIs also are a vital resource for every age group in every
community served, providing essential pre-collegiate outreach
throughout the K-12 education pipeline, and rapidly expanding workforce
development and lifelong learning initiatives.
The critical role of HSIs is best discerned from the crucial role
of Hispanics in our nation's future economic strength, security and
global leadership role. U. S. Census Bureau reports this year confirm
that Hispanics comprise the youngest and largest ethnic population in
the United States. Hispanics already make up one of every three new
workers joining the U.S. labor force today; by 2025, Latinos will make
up one of every two new workers joining the U.S. workforce.
Yet, Hispanics suffer the lowest high school and college graduation
rates of any major population group. Latinos also suffer the least
access among major population groups to the very technologies that
drive our economy, national security and leadership role in the
international marketplace. According to the U.S. Commerce Department,
more than one half of U.S. households have computers and more than four
of every ten have Internet access; for Hispanic households, only one-
third have computers and only about one-fifth have Internet access.
Because of their expertise, mission and proximity to every major
Hispanic population center, HSIs are at the forefront of every
significant effort to address these disparities. Many of the country's
two-year and four-year HSIs also have formed effective ``pipeline''
partnerships that are ensuring a successful transition from two-year
degree programs to four-year and advanced degree programs for Hispanic
higher education students, many of whom are first-generation college
students from low-income families. Because of their inherent expertise
at serving multicultural populations, HSIs also are at the forefront of
a substantial investment in international education to provide U.S.
students a globally comprehensive familiarity with and understanding of
diverse cultures essential to effectively serve an economy with such a
dynamic impact on the global marketplace and world peace.
Yet, HSIs receive only about half the federal funding on average
per student accorded to all other degree-granting institutions. Most
HSIs are located in major, urban areas of the country with a
comparatively higher concentration of poverty and subsequently lower
average tax base. Thus, these HSIs cannot depend on local dollars to
adequately address the digital divide.
Moreover, state support for higher education has been declining on
a per-student basis in almost every region of the country. In this
year's uncertain economy, this is especially true in states with large
Hispanic populations such as New York, California and Texas currently
suffering major budget shortfalls. Because the mission of these HSIs is
to promote higher education access to a population that suffers
historically high poverty rates, most HSIs have declined to increase
their tuition and fee formulas. Many HSIs also have access to no
endowments or very low endowments. HSIs are thus compelled to rely on
the few federal resources now available to them. H.R. 2272 and H.R.
2183 will provide HSIs and other Minority-Serving Institutions a much-
needed increase in federal dollars for technology education that
ultimately will benefit all Americans.
INFRASTRUCTURE, EQUIPMENT AND CAPABILITIES
The Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
and Opportunity Act of 2003 would provide $250 million in competitive
National Science Foundation grants in each year over a five-year period
to eligible Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and other Minority-
Serving Institutions to substantially enhance their technology
infrastructure, programs and training to bridge the digital divide.
Lack of an appropriate infrastructure and equipment to provide access
to students and faculty in classrooms are two important issues
affecting HSIs. This legislation would provide grants for new
technology equipment and infrastructure expansion as well as new
faculty development and technology leadership initiatives, and the
funds to create cost-effective technology partnerships.
That H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272 specifically identify Minority-Serving
Institutions, including HSIs, as eligible recipients of funding is very
much in line with the intent of this Act to reap the greatest benefits
out of each dollar invested in those institutions with the strongest
expertise and widest reach to the ``have-nots'' of the digital divide.
HACU, as the only nationally recognized voice for HSIs, represents
more than 300 HSIs and ``emerging HSIs'' with a large student
enrollment that has not yet reached the 25 percent requirement to
become HSIs. Many of these ``emerging HSIs,'' or ``Associate HSIs,''
will contribute to the expected doubling of HSIs expected to occur
during the next few decades. An overriding goal of HACU and HSIs is to
increase the numbers of Hispanic college graduates with advanced skills
in every discipline in which Hispanics now are under-represented. H.R.
2183 and H.R. 2272 promise not only to narrow the technology training
gap, but also to ultimately increase college completion rates overall
by providing Minority-Serving Institutions the tools they need to
enhance pre-collegiate and on-campus student success.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272 will allow HSIs and other Minority-Serving
Institutions to seek grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to
``develop and provide educational services, including faculty
development, to prepare students or faculty seeking a degree or
certificate that is approved by the State, or a regional accrediting
body recognized by the Secretary of Education.''
Increasing the ranks of Hispanic and other minority teachers is of
paramount importance, not only to higher education institutions but
also to the Nation's public schools. HSIs already award approximately
50 percent of all teacher education degrees earned by Hispanic higher
education students. Especially needed are teachers in the fields of
science, mathematics and technology. Funds provided under this
legislation would assist institutions in improving their facilities and
infrastructure.
However, because of a lack of funding for teacher education at
HSIs, the shortage of Hispanic teachers is acute. While 14 percent of
the elementary and secondary education student population is Hispanic,
only 4.3 percent of public school teachers are Hispanic, according to
the U.S. Census Bureau Digest of Education Statistics for 1998 and
1999. In higher education, only 2.4 percent of all full-time faculty
members are Hispanic (IPEDS, 1997).
Hispanics now earn master's, doctoral and professional degrees at
the rate of 2.4 percent among the adult population--compared to 6.0
percent for non-Hispanics. Hence, the numbers of Hispanics attaining
advanced degrees must more than double to achieve parity. Yet, only 20
percent of HSIs offer a Master's degree. Less than 12 percent of HSIs
offer a doctoral degree. H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272 directly address the
need to increase the capabilities of HSIs to produce more teachers with
advanced degrees.
TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM
H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272 will allow HSIs and other Minority-Serving
Institutions to seek grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to
``provide teacher education, library and media specialist training and
preschool and teacher aid certification to individuals who seek to
acquire or enhance technology skills in order to use technology in the
classroom or instructional process.''
Enhancing teacher education, classroom technology use and
instructional skills will focus on expanding the only means of
technology access for many of the youngest of the ``have-nots'' of the
digital divide. A survey on computer access released September 5, 2001,
by the U.S. Census Bureau reports that while only 33.7 percent of
Hispanic households own a computer, 70 percent of the Nation's Hispanic
students have computer access at school.
The long experience and proven expertise of HSIs in addressing
minority public school and community needs makes these institutions a
vital partner in efforts to enhance teacher technology training,
classroom and instructional skills. H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272 capitalize
on the geographic proximity, cross-cultural understanding and existing
community outreach of Minority-Serving Institutions by inviting their
active participation in new technology initiatives in the Nation's
public schools.
TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS
H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272 will allow HSIs and other Minority-Serving
Institutions to seek grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to
``implement a joint project to provide education regarding technology
in the classroom with a State or State educational agency, local
education agency, community-based organization, national nonprofit
organization, or business, including minority business or a business
located in HUB zones, as defined by the Small Business
Administration.''
Joint projects and partnerships to comprehensively address
classroom technology needs are a practical, effective means to meet the
technology needs of the Nation's larger minority communities. This
component of the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act of 2003 encourages inclusiveness and the
establishment of a wide base of community support and expertise.
HSIs, historically hampered by funding disparities, have come to
depend on the combined strengths and added resources of such
partnerships to successfully address issues ranging from adult
workforce development and lifelong learning to pre-collegiate
preparatory programs.
HSIs and other Minority-Serving Institutions already have
established the foundation for forming effective partnerships to
address technology disparities. H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272 provide the
funding and infrastructure support to capitalize on the proven
effectiveness of such partnership approaches in addressing the digital
divide.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272 also will allow HSIs and other Minority-
Serving Institutions to ``provide leadership development to
administrators, board members and faculty of eligible institutions with
institutional responsibility for technology education.'' Historically
under-funded HSIs can readily benefit from this investment in support
of those leaders who are charged with the strategic direction and
supervision of efforts to enhance technology infrastructure, training
and outreach.
HSIs and other Minority-Serving Institutions recognize the critical
role of leadership development in efforts to close the digital divide.
For example, the Advanced Networking with Minority-Serving Institutions
(AN-MSI) project, of which Lehman College is a member, includes a focus
on assisting campus leadership in Information Technology training. AN-
MSI is the result of a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant to
EDUCAUSE, a consolidation of the former CAUSE and Educom higher
educational technology associations. A sub-award was made to the
Education, Outreach and training Partnerships for Advanced
Computational Infrastructure (EOT-PACI).
EDUCAUSE established partnerships with HACU, the American Indian
Higher Education Consortium and other associations and councils
representing Minority-Serving Institutions. Leadership development
aspects of this ongoing project have included the involvement of
administrators of HSIs and other Minority-Serving Institutions at
Seminars on Academic Computing and a recent Technology Summit. Thanks
to this grant Lehman College has just completed a campus-wide strategic
plan for information technology, which represents a savings of
approximately $40,000.
The inclusion of leadership development in H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272
is another example of the Act's potential for success by strategically
addressing the Nation's digital divide on so many fronts--from
enhancing teacher skills in the classroom to supporting administrative
leadership development on the college campus.
CURRENT STATUS
A major source for funding technology initiatives at HSIs are
technology fees that are imposed on students. At the City University of
New York, the Board of Trustees enacted a Technology fee ($75/semester
for full-time students) during this past academic year as a means of
upgrading technology and equipment for student use at labs and the
Library. Approximately $1,000,000 is available on a yearly basis to
replace equipment, upgrade software, establish new computer labs, etc.
Technology infrastructure improvements at Lehman College are funded
through special, non-recurring capital allocations from NY state and
New York City. Federal grants are also a source for funding some
limited equipment for research at four-year HSIs.
At Lehman College we have managed over a period of many years to
extend cabling to most of our buildings. However, we now see the need
to replace the old copper lines with fiber optic lines and also to
extend them to individual classrooms. The high cost of this project
prevents from wiring all of the classrooms in need of connectivity.
Wireless access points are a more efficient way to provide connectivity
to classrooms. We currently have six facilities with wireless
capabilities, mostly in the student services area, and need an
additional thirty locations for academic purposes. In addition,
classrooms with two-way interactive audio and video capability would
serve to enhance the teaching and learning experience of students.
Again, the cost of this technology makes it prohibitive for us to have
more than the eight classrooms which were part of a major capital
upgrade of our Technology facilities.
Our most pressing need is to upgrade our network infrastructure,
including network security and telephony; provide faculty with
opportunities to develop teaching, learning and research processes
utilizing asynchronous modalities, and to upgrade the curriculum of our
teacher training program. We are endeavoring to meet these challenges
by working closely with federal, state and local leaders to obtain
funding for our initiatives. However, current budget conditions in our
state indicate that our initiatives will have to be extended over a
longer period of time.
CONCLUSION
HSIs and other Minority-Serving Institutions have the expertise,
proximity and commitment to their students and communities to provide
front-line leadership and support in the effort to close the
information technology gap. However, these institutions cannot succeed
without the support of Congress and its endorsement of a substantial
investment in federal dollars.
The digital divide between minority and non-minority populations is
not an empty buzzword, but an unfortunate reality in our nation. While
all sectors of society are acquiring greater access to information
technology and connectivity to the Internet, the gap between the better
educated and those behind them is widening each year--not only in
qualitative terms, but quantifiably as well.
The U.S. Department of Commerce series of reports--``Falling
Through the Net,'' released in 2000, and ``A Nation Online: How
Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet,'' released in 2001--
document the divide between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites and the
Nation as a whole. The 2000 report, the last reporting on household
Information Technology (IT) use, tells us that more than one half of
U.S. households have computers and more than four of every ten have
Internet access. For Hispanic households, the numbers are only one-
third and about two of every ten, respectively.
This same report documents that in 2000, Hispanics made almost 27
percent less individual use of the Internet than non-Hispanic whites.
In the latest 2001 report, the gap grew to more than 28 percent. While
computer and Internet access is slowly increasing for Hispanics, the
digital divide between them and the rest of the Nation's population is
becoming wider.
Examining individual Internet use by age groups enables us to look
at the traditional college-age population. In the 2000 report,
Hispanics were 32.6 percentage points behind their non-Hispanic white
counterparts (65 percent). The 2001 report, focusing on 18-24 year-olds
actually in school or college, documents that Hispanics are about 20
percent less likely than non-Hispanic whites to have a home computer
and almost 25 percent less likely to use the Internet at home.
This reports highlights the critical importance of this bill and
the urgency of supporting our HSIs, because the gap between Hispanics
and non-Hispanic whites lessens to 15 percent when one considers
outside home use, which for these students overwhelmingly means school
or college. The 15 percent gap is still large, but it is a sign of
progress in the right direction. Similar patterns exist for Hispanics
ages 3 to 17 years. The 2000 report shows substantially large gaps
between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics overall. The latest 2001
report underlines that Congressional action is necessary to bridge the
widening digital divide for our youth by increasing their access to
technology in the school setting.
H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272 propose a comprehensive approach to
aggressively address the digital divide, targeting potential funding to
those higher education institutions serving the largest concentrations
of minority higher education students in those communities with the
fastest-growing minority populations. The Minority-Serving Institution
Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003 is a
strategically sound, cost-effective response to a challenge the Nation
can no longer afford to leave unanswered.
HSIs are the most important national resource for the education and
training of Hispanics and other disadvantaged students across the
Nation. This fact will only be magnified in the years ahead as the
Hispanic population continues to grow faster than any other ethnic
community in the country and reaffirms its crucial role in the economic
and public life of the Nation.
The changing nature of our economy demands that under-served and
under-represented but fast-growing populations be educated and trained
at increasingly higher levels for the jobs and leadership roles of the
``new economy.'' Notwithstanding the recent bursting of the dot-com
bubble, the high-technology sector continues to expand at the speed of
human creativity. Thus, information technologies, telecommunications,
and biotechnology, among others, require increasing numbers of workers
with high skills and advanced knowledge that only a quality higher
education can provide.
H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272 present a tremendous, timely opportunity
for Congress and the President to ensure that future generations of
Hispanics and other disadvantaged populations do not remain stagnated
at the bottom of America's educational ladder. This cost-effective
legislation directly addresses the technology needs of our ``emerging
majority'' populations, which surely will propel our nation to a future
in which all of us benefit from this equitable, practical investment in
our nation's economic success, security and leadership. I urge
Distinguished Members of this committee to support the Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003.
Biography for Ricardo R. Fernandez
Prior to his appointment in 1990, Fernandez was Assistant Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs at UW-Milwaukee, where he also was a
Professor in the Department of Educational Policy and Community
Studies.
His research interests have focused on educational equity, school
desegregation and language minority students, public policy and
bilingual education, and high school dropouts/at-risk students. For the
past six years he has served as Chair of the Bronx Educational
Alliance, a coalition of school districts, colleges and universities,
and community-based organizations that promotes K-12 collaboration.
A member of AAHE and its Hispanic Caucus, in 1998-99 he was the
Chair of the Governing Board of the Hispanic Association of Colleges
and Universities and has been active on several committees of the
American Council on Education and the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities. He has served on accreditation teams for the
Middle States Association and the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges. Currently he is a member of the New York State Education
Commissioner's Advisory Council on Higher Education and also of the New
York State Senate's Higher Education Advisory Committee.
Dr. Fernandez holds the Master's and doctorate from Princeton
University and a B.A. and a M.A. from Marquette University. He attended
the Institute for Educational Management at Harvard University in 1992,
and was a Fellow in Academic Administration of the American Council on
Education in 1981-82. In 1986-87 Dr. Fernandez was a Research Fellow at
UW-Madison's National Center for Effective Secondary Schools.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Fernandez, thank you. Dr. Earvin.
STATEMENT OF DR. LARRY L. EARVIN, PRESIDENT, HUSTON-TILLOTSON
COLLEGE
Dr. Earvin. Mr. Chairman and members of the House Committee
on Science, as President of Huston-Tillotson College in Austin,
Texas, I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the
United Negro College Fund to discuss legislation to provide
discretionary grants to America's historically black colleges
and universities and other minority serving institutions of
higher education to upgrade the technology infrastructure,
instrumentation, and instructional capacity in order to produce
students for the 21st century workforce.
I am very pleased to join my colleagues and peers in the
higher education community and to have the opportunity to
discuss with distinguished members of the Subcommittee an issue
that should be among Congress's highest legislative priorities.
Let me make three major points and then respond to any
questions that you may have.
First, the digital divide is alive and well in America.
Notwithstanding the enormous progress we have made as a nation
in expanding access for racial minorities and the poor to
computers and the Internet, colleges and universities like
Huston Tillotson, which provide access to low income students
who would otherwise find the door to post-secondary education
closed, must overcome the double jeopardy of poverty and
technological illiteracy in educating our students. With
federal help, or more importantly, without federal help, we
will fail in our mission to ensure higher education opportunity
for all Americans, especially the growing majority of
minorities. America will be shortchanged if we fail.
Second, the technological capacity at too many UNCF
institutions, as well as at other HBCUs and other minority
serving institutions, is insufficient to meet the extraordinary
demand of students, faculty, and staff that we serve and
employ. In fact, without the targeted support envisioned by
H.R. 2183 and H.R. 2272, UNCF colleges and universities will be
unable to take the necessary steps to become fully competitive
with other institutions of higher education. We must all have a
technological foundation with which to prepare our students in
the omnipresent information age.
Third, the bills pending before the Subcommittee represent
an important step in the right direction, but each could
benefit from certain amendments. UNCF believes that both the
bill introduced by Mr. Forbes and the bill introduced by Mr.
Towns reflect considerable thought and deliberation, but
contain provisions that need modification. UNCF urges the
Subcommittee to consider adopting provisions from both bills in
order to develop a bipartisan consensus proposal that can be
adopted in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Among the recommendations included in my written testimony,
UNCF urges the following: (1) Adopt a strong peer review
provision to ensure that highly qualified persons who are both
knowledgeable about and familiar with technological
infrastructure, instrumentation, and instructional needs of the
HBCUs and MSIs, but also, who are conversant with the academic
programs and needs of these institutions in general, will
evaluate all proposals to determine their merit; (2) Evaluate
carefully the agency best suited to house, manage, and assure
the programmatic success of this program for the Congress; and
(3) Ensure that adequate reporting requirements are applied
both to agency administration and institutional implementation
of the program so as to guarantee to the maximum extent
practical the successful achievement of Congress's legislative
objectives.
Thank you for the opportunity to present UNCF's testimony
and to provide their recommendations. I would be pleased to
answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Earvin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry L. Earvin
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am
pleased to appear before you today, with my other colleagues, on behalf
of the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), of which Huston-Tillotson
College, where I am President, is a member institution. I personally am
honored to testify before a Committee represented by so many
distinguished Members of Congress from the great State of Texas, which
is home to Huston-Tillotson and 8 other historically black colleges and
universities. UNCF's President and CEO, William H. Gray, III, was
unable to testify and I am privileged to speak on behalf of the 39
member colleges and universities in UNCF. UNCF is America's oldest and
most successful African American higher education assistance
organization.
As you may know, Huston-Tillotson College is the oldest institution
of higher education in Austin, Texas. Our current student body--554
students--is educated in an intimate academic atmosphere with a
faculty/student ratio of 12 to 1, and an average class size of 12
students. Academic programs range from mathematics and education to
political science and music. Huston-Tillotson is an innovator in
teacher preparation and international business.
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, the bill, H.R. 2183, the
Minority Serving Institution Digital & Wireless Network Technology
Opportunity Act, provides Congress with the opportunity to address the
technology instrumentation and infrastructure needs of the Nation's
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other
minority-serving institutions. Enhancing the technology instrumentation
and infrastructure at the HBCUs is one of the most critical issues
affecting the education of African Americans and other minority
students in America. It is critical that Congress enact legislation to
assist HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions with the
acquisition of technology instrumentation and infrastructure, faculty
development, training and the integration of technology into the
curriculum at the Nation's college and universities that educate our
minority students.
Unfortunately, too many of these minority students have been raised
in families without a computer in the home, attended poor urban and
rural schools that were not wired nor equipped with 21st Century
technology, and have been taught by educators who may have had less
facility with computers than their students. This reality has been
documented in Falling Through The Net--A Report on the
Telecommunications and Information Technology Gap in America (July
1999). Despite attempts to deny this income-based reality--we face it
everyday in American higher education.
For example, UNCF member institutions and other HBCUs enroll large
numbers of poor students, whose parents are unable to help pay college
costs. In fact, nearly 60 percent of all UNCF students come from
families with incomes less than $25,000. An estimated 92 percent of all
UNCF students receive some form of federal financial assistance, and
sixty percent of UNCF students are first-generation college students.
It is clear, then, that the confluence of these demographic factors
make virtually certain that many UNCF students will have their first
exposure to computers and to the Internet when they arrive on the
college campus.
Mr. Chairman, let me describe for you the state of technology at
UNCF member institutions and how, in conjunction with UNCF's Technology
Enhancement Capital Campaign, the legislation being discussed today
should be structured to address this important issue. For many UNCF
institutions, which enroll large numbers of minorities, making up the
digital deficits at home and at school constitutes a real financial
challenge. The inability of institutions to finance the acquisition of
needed technology infrastructure creates another digital divide.
Compared to other colleges, private black colleges have very small
endowments and cannot fall back on sizable numbers of wealthy alumni.
The average endowment of UNCF schools for the 1999-2000 academic year
was $23.358 million. Larger, well-financed institutions have greater
access to the funding necessary to purchase technology, than do
smaller, private colleges with fewer resources.
Technology capacity, at some UNCF member institutions, is
insufficient to support extraordinary demands of the students, faculty,
and staff. As a result, those campuses are unable to take the necessary
steps to being fully competitive with other institutions of higher
education. Some campuses do not have adequate bandwidth; they have a T-
1 line. Further, with only one broadcast domain, these institutions
cannot segment the T-1 line. This is like needing an eight-lane highway
and only having one lane. You are unable to manage the data. This means
we are slow to receive information, and any increased traffic causes
backups, etc.
Some UNCF member institutions would ultimately like to provide a
wireless domain on campus, which they are unable to do currently. A
wireless domain would allow portability to deliver curriculum in
creative ways and not solely within the boundaries of an actual
classroom. Such capabilities increase an institution's attractiveness
to students. In fact, at some campuses, residential students are forced
to choose between a wired dorm room shared with other students and a
single room without computer access.
Faculty at UNCF campuses is skilled across the range of
capabilities in terms of the technology on campus. For example, one
member institution houses and hosts a super computer cluster that is
used by numerous campuses, although this network is not robust enough
to allow faculty to conduct research due to the limitations in the
system to manage the traffic. Many are learning the basics of using
technology and/or are moving to use technology to increase
productivity. Very few yet have reached the mastery over technology
where they are prepared to develop entirely new learning environments
that utilize technology as a flexible teaching and learning tool.
What exists at UNCF member institutions is not dissimilar to what
you have heard and will hear from the other distinguished witnesses.
The `digital divide' in higher education has been documented in
``Historically Black Colleges and Universities--An Assessment of
Networking and Connectivity'' (October 2000), ``Ending The Digital
Divide--The Nation's Tribal College and Universities,'' and
``Assessment of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities;'' and
in ``The Power of The Internet for Learning'' (December 2000). The
digital divide threatens to deny minority students and our institutions
the competitive skills they need to defeat the remaining vestiges
imposed by race and economic segregation in America.
Fortunately, UNCF member institutions have benefited from its
Technology Campaign. Campuses now are closing the digital divide. In
fact, last year, UNCF's President and CEO, William H. Gray, III,
testified before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee on this very topic. Without UNCF's assistance, many campuses
would be that much more digitally challenged. Let me take a moment to
highlight some of the accomplishments from the UNCF Technology
Campaign.
In January 2000, UNCF announced a partnership with Microsoft, IBM,
AT&T and other major corporations and launched an $80 million
Technology Enhancement Capital Campaign (TECC). The campaign was
designed to strengthen the technological capacity of each of the 39
member colleges and universities in three significant ways.
First, TECC strengthened the technology capacity through
modernizing each institution's technology platform and gave every
student and faculty member access to computers. As a result of this
campaign, all UNCF colleges and universities meet certain minimum
technology standards, including increased network capacity and uniform
systems that enable electronic learning among institutions. Technical
support was given so that all wiring, equipment installment, and data
migration and configuration of hardware--including system testing--have
been properly accomplished. This created equity in opportunity by
making the same technology available to students attending UNCF member
colleges and universities as is now available to students at majority
institutions.
Second, on-campus training is being provided to a core group of
campus officials who will then train others in the operation of all
equipment. TECC also includes a faculty development component to assist
faculty in integrating information technology into the curriculum and
to assist faculty members in strengthening their research and
instructional techniques using technology.
Third, TECC is helping make technology more affordable for
individual students and faculty. HBCU students, faculty, and staff can
purchase computer hardware and software from major technology
providers, such as Dell, IBM, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft, at
discounted prices--as low as three hundred dollars--along with low-cost
financing through UNCF's e-commerce web site, which was developed
through a generous contribution of technical services from Electronic
Data Services (EDS).
UNCF's TECC campaign is helping to close the digital divide on UNCF
campuses. UNCF already has exceeded its $80 million TECC campaign goal.
Here are a few examples of the campus-based results of the TECC
campaign:
In Texas, four member colleges--Paul Quinn College,
Huston-Tillotson College, Jarvis Christian College and Wiley
College--received from UNCF $8.3 million. With their share of
the technology funds, Huston-Tillotson was able to purchase and
implement a state of the art, voice-over IP telephone solution.
Furthermore, the college also implemented a wireless LAN that
expands the entire campus.
In Florida, where UNCF has three member colleges--
Bethune-Cookman College, Edward Waters College, and Florida
Memorial College--UNCF provided $6.6 million in technology
funds. One example of the use of the funds is that Bethune-
Cookman established a quality infrastructure for storage and
distribution of applications and data.
In North Carolina, there are six member colleges and
universities--Johnson C. Smith University, Shaw University, St.
Augustine's College, Barber Scotia College, Bennett College and
Livingstone College. Here UNCF has invested $13.7 million in
technology. With its portion of the funds, Johnson C. Smith
University developed a print solution and a robust e-mail
system.
In Georgia, UNCF colleges and universities--including
Clark Atlanta University, Interdenominational Theological
Center, Morehouse College, Spelman College and Paine College--
received a total investment of $18.0 million. At Clark Atlanta
University, computer lab capability and access were enhanced,
with improved security.
In Virginia, there are two member institutions--St.
Paul's College and Virginia Union University, where UNCF funded
$2.7 million in technology. As an example, Virginia Union
University established a totally wireless campus and created
mathematics computer labs for classroom teaching and accounting
computer labs for teaching and student exercises.
In Tennessee, three UNCF institutions--Fisk
University, Lane College and LeMoyne-Owen College--received a
total investment of $6.0 million. Fisk University installed
computers in the dorms, improved its web site and enhanced
networking capabilities.
In Alabama, there are five UNCF member institutions--
Miles College, Oakwood College, Stillman College, Talladega
College, and Tuskegee University, where UNCF funded $12.5
million in technology. Tuskegee University wired its entire
campus, enabling it to provide access to students and faculty
campus-wide.
In addition, all 39 UNCF campuses have benefited from upgraded
network infrastructures and increased access to technology for
students, faculty, and staff.
UNCF institutions have received hardware, including
5,500 desktop computers, almost 1,800 network printers, nearly
2,000 network servers, and about 2,000 laptops, as well as
hundreds of hubs, switches and network routers, courtesy of
Hewlett Packard, Cisco, Lexmark, Dell and Pfizer;
The wiring of member institution campuses is
completed--including over 3,800 network drops in learning
centers and administrative and academic facilities and
equipment installation and configuration; and
UNCF member institution received 145,000 current
versions of Microsoft, including Windows 2000, Encarta
Reference Suite 2000, Microsoft Office Suite 2000, Windows XP,
and Encarta Africana 2000 courtesy of an `in-kind' gift from
Microsoft.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, I am submitting the list of these
contributors.
Even with all the support from UNCF and its supporters, we are far
from closing the digital divide. Much more remains to be done. This
leaves a clearly defined role for Congress to play.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I must point out,
however, that any legislation directed at closing the digital divide at
UNCF member institution, its sister historically black colleges and
universities, and other minority institutions of higher education,
cannot be marginalized. Simply put--with the technology needs being so
paramount at our schools--the legislation must be drafted and designed
to meet the varying needs of the HBCUs and all MSIs. That is why so
focus has been given to placing such a critical federal initiative at
the appropriate department or agency--one where there are no statutory
constraints that limit the agency's ability to meet the needs of the
eligible institutions and to accomplish the goals Congress has defined.
The question has been raised as to whether Huston-Tillotson, for
example, could acquire technology for and train staff in the student
financial aid office, if the program authority contemplated in H.R.
2183 is placed at the National Science Foundation (NSF). What if
Huston-Tillotson wants to make a course in Farci, taught via the
Internet or telecommunications satellite with the University of Texas,
available to its students (and to students at neighboring Wiley College
or Paul Quinn College) with technology purchased with H.R. 2183 funds?
I know there are individuals who will argue that such activities are
possible, if indeed a federal program were established at NSF.
Nonetheless, I question whether NSF has the authority to fund
activities that are not tied directly to research and education in the
sciences, mathematics and engineering or to competitively fund ``bricks
and mortar'' projects. As I noted earlier, UNCF member institutions'
needs vary widely and may extend well beyond a narrow interpretation of
NSF's focus.
In the past, NSF has been less than eager to fund science education
and research projects at institutions that are not among the flagship
academic and research institutions in America. NSF is not alone in this
regard. The Department of Commerce and NSF's records of performance in
providing grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to the MSIs
leave much to be desired. Presidents at UNCF member institutions can
recount numerous stories about these federal departments' and agencies'
track records with the HBCUs. I imagine that with Hispanic-Serving
Institutions and with Tribal Colleges and Universities this track
record also is far from stellar. Outside of the programs housed in
NSF's Education and Human Resources Directorate, only a handful of
minority-serving institutions benefit from the full complement of NSF's
research and related activities. The Department of Commerce does not
have a single dedicated HBCU or minority serving institution Therefore,
UNCF member institutions are reticent about how such a program would
fare at NSF, not to mention at other departments and agencies.
This is not to say that NSF, the Department of Commerce, and the
other federal departments and agencies all should not have some
dedicated, capacity building program for HBCUs. In fact, the
President's Advisory Board on HBCUs has made such a recommendation to
the President in its recent ``2001-2002 Annual Report to the President
Under Executive Order 13256.'' I hope that this very goal is something
this Congress and this Administration will soon achieve.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, on behalf of UNCF member
institutions, I make the following specific recommendations as you
deliberate this issue and H.R. 2183:
delete the Advisory Council in section 4(b) and
substitute a strong peer review panel provision that ensures
that people, both knowledgeable about and familiar with the
technology infrastructure, instrumentation, and instructional
needs of HBCUs/MSIs, and also conversant with the academic
programs and the needs of these institutions in general,
participate on these panels;
modify section 3 (5) to state--``(5) to provide
professional development and training to administrators and
faculty of eligible institutions with responsibility for all
phases of academic instruction and institutional
administration;'' and
include a provision that calls for, to the maximum
extent possible, equitable distribution of appropriated funds
to the range of eligible institutions that will participate in
the program.
UNCF also has some concerns regarding the reporting requirements in the
bill, which it has provided some recommendations, for the record.
In addition, the legislation established an Office of Digital and
Wireless Network Technology to carry out the activities designated in
H.R. 2183. It remains unclear as to whether or not the salaries and
expenses to support this office are stipulated in the bill as written.
In closing, HBCUs face the twenty-first century as maturing
institutions with an educational legacy that now is more important than
ever given the rapidly changing demographics of this nation. The action
you take on this significant issue will have a momentous impact on the
future prosperity and security of our entire nation.
Again, I want to thank the Committee for this opportunity to
testify and to present the views of UNCF on this important legislation.
UNCF is available to assist you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee as you proceed with consideration of the bill.
Attachment B
PROPOSED REVISIONS IN SECTION 7
(c) Contents of Evaluation.--The Director shall prepare an evaluation
of the program authorized by this Act, based on the annual reports
submitted by each institution that receives a grant under this Act. The
Director's evaluation shall assess the short- and long-range impact of
the activities undertaken by each grantee relative to the institution's
plan for addressing the technology infrastructure, instrumentation and
instructional needs of that institution. The Director's evaluation
shall include the first five years of funded institutional activity.
(d) Report To Congress. The Director shall prepare and submit a report
to Congress no later than one-year after the fifth year of funded
institutional activity. The Report to Congress shall include a summary
of the institutional activity undertaken and a comprehensive report on
each institutional award, including: the amount of funds provided, the
institution's technology enhancement plan, the activities undertaken
with federal funds, any activities undertaken with matching or
institutional ``in-kind'' (non-federal) funds, and the institution's
assessment of the impact of the grant. The Director may also include an
assessment of the impact of the program on closing the ``digital
divide'' at minority-serving institutions and appropriate
recommendations for the continuing need for federal support for the
program.
Biography for Larry L. Earvin
A post in education that was to last one year resulted in a 27-year
career filled with numerous accomplishments, successes, and a
presidential appointment. Effective July 1, 2000, Dr. Larry L. Earvin
was appointed by the Board of Trustees as the fifth President and Chief
Executive Officer of Huston-Tillotson College. His millennium year
appointment was made during the College's 125th anniversary.
Dr. Earvin's reputation as an efficacious leader was established
during his seven successful years as Dean of the School of Arts and
Sciences at Clark Atlanta University. As President of Huston-Tillotson
College, he has used his leadership skills to garner support for the
College from the entire community.
Since his arrival in Austin, Earvin has steadied the pace of his
leadership in building community and corporate support for higher
education. He has become actively involved in several local public
interest concerns including the Capital Area United Way, the Austin
Area Urban League, and the Austin Area Research Organization. At the
local level, he has also been applauded for his leadership in
innovative collaborations which include Tarrytown United Methodist
Church, The Austin Chapter of The Links, Southwestern University at
Georgetown, and the Austin Idea Network.
Earvin's expertise has been recognized through his election to
several state and national boards of directors, including the
Independent Colleges and the University of Texas, the Council of
Independent Colleges (Washington, D.C.), National Association for Equal
Opportunity in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.), the University
Senate, the Black College Fund of the United Methodist Church, and the
Higher Education Council of the United Church of Christ.
Earvin obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from the former Clark
College, a Master's of Science from Georgia State University and the
doctor of philosophy from Emory University.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Earvin, thank you. Dr. Fennell.
STATEMENT OF DR. DWIGHT J. FENNELL, PRESIDENT, PAUL QUINN
COLLEGE
Dr. Fennell. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Smith and
Ranking Member, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, for the
opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of Paul Quinn
College. The need for higher education institutions to be in
the forefront of the digital divide is paramount. In order to
maintain a preparatory presence, it is essential that faculty,
staff, and students keep abreast with the introduction of new
and current technologies.
In this regard, higher education institutions must have, at
a minimum, technologies that include desktop computers,
connectivity with Internet access, and the ability to provide
professional development on the various types of administrative
and office productivity software. Higher education must also
effectively prepare students to meet and address the workforce
demands and expectations. For these purposes, it is critically
important that higher education initiatives now include the
element of a functional plan of action to upgrade the campus
environment, retain and retool campus constituents, and
maintain a vigilance about new technologies and their use.
Paul Quinn College is a private, four-year liberal arts
institution located in Dallas, Texas. The college was founded
in 1872 and has served an historically black population during
her tenure. The college for 131 years has been meaningful to
the development of individuals from communities throughout
Texas and the Nation, with the provision of educational
enhancements that provide the necessary, functional, and
sustaining skill sets that are contemporary for competitive
employment and/or pertinent to individuals' matriculation to
graduate and professional schools.
This has been especially true in the area of technology,
and in spite of the increasing demands placed on higher
education with new software, hardware, and training, there
continues to be a need to remain technologically functional. As
a private institution, it is important to have access to
funding pools that would increasingly aid in the building and
maintaining the technology infrastructure. This is pertinent to
both the administrative operations of the college and the
instructional preparation of our students.
Paul Quinn College is currently positioned with a new
wireless network and complete Internet access. The college has
also purchased a new administrative software package called
Comprehensive Administrative Management System, or referred to
as CAMS. This purports that the administrative operations of
the college, student labs, faculty offices, and select areas
such as the library have been upgraded. Notwithstanding, the
most pressing technology needs are enriching the living-
learning environment of the college's residence halls and the
need to further create a campus friendly initiative with the
use of technology with on-line registrations, review of
billing, expansion of inter-relational connectivity with the
area campuses, and the establishment of informational
opportunities between students and faculty. Significant to the
aforementioned are training and professional development needs
as well.
The current address of technology is achieved through the
process of grantsmanship, fundraising, and philanthropic
support. The United Negro College Fund is also a major
supporter in both the provision and the creation of
opportunities for acquiring technologies. As a result of
technology having a short-term innovative life, the support for
more available and assured streams of funding is essential.
Also essential is the need to have funding for a computer/
technology refreshing program and the need to revamp the core
structure of the campus with technological upgrades.
In spite of the accomplishments to date, Paul Quinn
College, as many other higher education institutions, continues
to have an increasing obligation to do more with technology. As
a result of the fast paced growth in this area, funding pools
will continue to be needed to upgrade technology
infrastructures, which are essential to the growth and
development of our students. This, too, purports the training
that is essential for faculty and training that is necessary
for staffs that conduct the operations of our institutions.
As H.R. 2183, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act, takes form, it is proposed
that the following items be considered for the betterment of
all higher education. The recommendations would include that
the Act allow for the provision of a process that provides for
the receipt of funding that will be pertinent to any technology
needs as identified by the institutions. This is critically
important in that the needs as identified by the institution
speaks to the necessary technology that is needed to advance
the campus. Moreover, while institutions have comparable needs,
they are not all the same needs in terms of technological
advances.
Technically, the provision of a process that is not
prescribed for select disciplines or programs. Most often, the
use of technology is associated with the scientist, math, or
engineering disciplines. Being a liberal arts institution, we
find it now significantly important that liberal arts
disciplines and programs also be prepared with the same
technology for research, instruction, or delivery. The
informational exchange is most practical and necessary during
this time.
We believe, also, that there is a need for a process that
ensures a peer review procedure. A peer review, in our opinion,
is crucial and critical. A study or statement by those who best
understand the institution from our history, from our mission,
to our program delivery, is significantly important to offering
the review that is needed to assist in advancing our
institution's developments in technology.
And lastly, the provision of campus-wide opportunities in
professional development and technical assistance. In order for
students, faculty, and staff to advance, complimentary supports
must be placed throughout the campus. Such supports for
professional development and technical assistance provide for
reinforcement across the campus in learning and providing the
technological growth that is needed both for the institution
and the individual.
The concerns as expressed on behalf of Paul Quinn College
have universal appeal to institutions that are similarly
situated. Moreover, independent private institutions, in
particular, and all of higher education more generally, have a
need for assistance with building capacity, enriching the lives
of our constituents, and enhancing the living-learning
environment, all of which are essential for a better nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and
we are prepared to answer any questions that are placed before
us.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fennell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dwight J. Fennell
The need for higher education institutions to be in the forefront
of the digital divide is paramount. In order to maintain a preparatory
presence, it is essential that faculty, staff and students be kept
abreast with the introduction of new and current technologies. In this
regard, higher education institutions must have, at a minimum,
technologies that include desktop computers, connectivity with
Internet access and the ability to provide professional development on
the various types of administrative and office productivity software.
Higher education must also effectively prepare students to meet and
address workforce demands and expectations. For these purposes, it is
critically important that higher education initiatives now include the
element of a functional ``Plan of Action'' to upgrade the campus
environment, retrain and retool campus constituents and maintain a
vigilance about new technologies and there use.
Paul Quinn College is a private four-year liberal arts institution
located in Dallas, Texas. The College was founded in 1872 and has
served a historically black population during her tenure. The College
for 131 years has been meaningful to the development of individuals
from communities throughout Texas and the Nation, with the provision of
educational enhancements that provide the necessary, functional and
sustaining skill sets that are contemporary for competitive employment
and/or pertinent to the individuals' matriculation to graduate and
professional schools. This has been especially true in the area of
technology and in spite of the increasing demands placed on higher
education with new software, hardware and training, there continues to
be a need to remain technologically functional. As a private
institution, it is important to have access to funding pools that would
increasingly aid in building and maintaining the technology
infrastructure. This is pertinent to both the administrative operations
of the College and the instructional preparation of students.
Paul Quinn College is currently positioned with a new wireless
network and complete Internet access. The College has also purchased a
new administrative software package Comprehensive Administrative
Management System (CAMS). This purports that the administrative
operations of the College, student labs, faculty offices and select
areas such as the library have been upgraded. Notwithstanding, the most
pressing technology needs are enriching the living-learning environment
in the College's residence halls and the need to further create campus
friendly initiatives with the use of technology in on-line
registrations, review of billing; expansion of inter-relational
connectivity with area campuses; and the establishment of informational
opportunities between students and faculty. Significant to the
aforementioned are training and professional development needs as well.
The current address of technology is achieved through the process
of grantsmanship, fundraising and philanthropic support. The United
Negro College Fund, Inc., is also a major supporter in both the
provision and creation of opportunities for acquiring technologies. As
a result of technology having a short-term innovative life, the support
for more available and assured streams of funding is essential. Also,
essential is the need to have funding for a ``computer refreshing
program'' and the need to revamp the core structure of the campus with
technological upgrades.
In spite of the accomplishments to date, Paul Quinn College (as
many other higher education institutions) continues to have an
increasing obligation to do more with technology. As a result of the
fast paced growth in this area, funding pools will continue to be
needed to upgrade technology infrastructures which are essential to the
growth and development of our students. This too purports the training
that is essential for faculty training and the training that is
necessary for staffs that conduct the operations of the institution.
As ``H.R. 2183, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act,'' takes form, it is proposed that
the following items be considered for the betterment of all of higher
education. The recommendations would include, the Act allowing for:
The provision of a process that provides for the
receipt of funding that will be pertinent to any technology
needs, as identified by the institution.
The provision of a process that is not prescribed for
select disciplines or programs.
A process that ensures a peer review procedure.
Provision of campus-wide opportunities in
professional development and technical assistance.
The concerns as expressed on behalf of Paul Quinn College have
universal appeal to institutions that are similarly situated. Moreover,
independent private institutions, in particular, and all of higher
education more generally, have a need for assistance with building
capacity, enriching the lives of our constituents and enhancing the
living-learning environment; all of which are essential for a better
nation.
Biography for Dwight J. Fennell
Dr. Dwight Fennell is the 32nd President of Paul Quinn College. Dr.
Fennell is a native of Miami, Florida where he completed all of his
grade level education in the public school system.
Upon completion of high school, he attended Saint Augustine's
College in Raleigh, North Carolina, where he completed the
baccalaureate degree in History and Government. Immediately following
his undergraduate education, he pursued and completed the Master of
Arts Degree in History at (the then) Atlanta University. He also
attended and completed a second Master of Education degree in Education
at Florida International University, Miami Florida. The Doctor of
Philosophy and Education Specialist degrees were completed at The
Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida.
Dr. Fennell began his career in higher education at Florida
International University where he worked in various capacities
associated with student services. While at Florida International
University he worked with community service initiatives, Adult and
Continuing Education and as assistant director of the college's Honors
Program. He was also employed with Florida Atlantic University, in Boca
Raton, Florida where he directed the university's initiative for
student retention and served as assistant to the university's
affirmative action officer.
After leaving the state university system of Florida, Dr. Fennell
taught at Morris Brown College in Atlanta, Georgia, and later at Saint
Augustine's College in Raleigh, North Carolina. While at Saint
Augustine's College he became a tenured professor of History and
education. He also became the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a
position he held for seven years (of his eleven-year tenure).
Dr. Fennell came to Paul Quinn College in 1998, to the position of
Provost. In this capacity, he was responsible for oversight of the
areas of academic and student affairs and serving as needed when called
upon by the President.
On last year Dr. Fennell was selected as Interim President, during
the search period for a permanent president. It was also during this
period that Paul Quinn College had a phenomenal year; the enrollment
grew both semesters, the retention of students increased and the
College operated in the black.
Effective May 4, 2002, Dr. Fennell received the unanimous vote of
the Board of Trustees to become Paul Quinn College's 32nd President.
Dr. Fennell states that he ``sees a bright future for the College with
an emphasis being placed on: increased enrollments, the establishing of
`niche' academic programs, greater enhanced retention, increased
collaboration with the community, increased scholarship opportunities
for students and expanded athletic programs.'' Dr. Fennell is very
optimistic about the future of Paul Quinn College, as the gateway to
the ``educational corridor'' in the Dallas community.
Dr. Fennell has contributed to the production of articles in
history; he has contributed to research in both history and education;
he has experience in grantsmanship and fundraising; and he has done
extensive work in program accreditation and institutional
accreditation.
Dr. Fennell is married to Angelia Fennell, and they have one son,
Dwight, Jr.
Discussion
Chairman Smith. Thank you very much. For the panel's and
the audience's information, in just a couple of minutes we are
going to go to the Floor, I understand, for three votes.
Interestingly, it is on education and how we encourage quality
teachers in compliance with No Child Left Behind. But also, as
a special priority for science and math, looking at increasing
the forgiveness of student loans from, I think it is $5,000 now
up to $17,000 for math and science teachers, to try to
accommodate some of the great needs.
You know, originally, in the 107th when the bill was
introduced, the legislation called for this responsibility
going to the Department of Commerce. We have established the
Technology Administration in Commerce. We will be talking about
what is the best and most effective way to get this money out
in a reasonable fashion, so we have also asked the Director of
the National Science Foundation, Rita Colwell, to be here today
to give us her ideas. Is there any particular thoughts that any
of you have with why we shouldn't at least consider the
technology administration in Commerce for administering this
program? Does anybody have any particular comments on that? Dr.
Humphries.
Dr. Humphries. I am going to become technologically
literate before it is over. The National Science Foundation
today already has programs which deal with minority
institutions, and there are several of those programs that
produce within the National Science Foundation a currency and
knowledge about the institutions. They have programs that focus
on the graduate level, they have programs that focus on the
undergraduate level, and they have programs that focus pre-
college in terms of getting people to do what you were talking
about, how you get more minorities to come into science and
technology.
So there is a base of knowledge pertaining to minority
institutions that is within the National Science Foundation in
existence. This couples the technology sufficiency at our
institution, couples well with the kind of things that they are
doing presently in terms of this, and so we need to do more
with the National Science Foundation in terms of their support
for minority serving institutions. The more we put over there,
the more I think that we can get more of a synergy which
relates to getting more focused.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Fernandez, you mentioned the importance
of a blueprint, a plan. Should that be part of the requirements
for these grants, that there is a plan in place to move ahead
in this area? Should that be part of the grant application
provisions?
Dr. Fernandez. I would not want to put that as a
requirement, because there are some institutions who need these
funds precisely to put together that plan on how to best
utilize that. But I would like to, if I may, talk also about
the previous point. In looking at the NSF executive summary of
the strategic plan, I note on page 3 that they talk about core
strategies, one of which, the second one, is strengthen the
physical infrastructure. And I quote, ``Modernize existing
facilities and instruments and plan for future needs, including
taking full advantage of the capabilities of emerging
information technologies.'' So that struck me as certainly one
area, one justification, for including this program under the
National Science Foundation. But ultimately, I guess, it is up
to the Committee to----
Chairman Smith. I guess part of the challenge is that money
is limited in NSF. Our budget is very modest compared to, for
example, NIH. And so there has been some feeling of a priority
that we get the most bang for our basic research dollar, and
having peer reviews of what areas of basic research should we
be looking at and who can best accommodate that research. I
mean, I guess my personal feeling, it is possible, we could do
it. I am reluctant to make NSF an affirmative action agency. I
think even on this legislation, the question that comes to my
mind is, you know, two areas maybe. One is what is the need for
non-minority institutions? And I think we need to assess that.
It might be some of our colleges that aren't necessarily
serving minorities that have just as great a need. So need
should be part of our priority, and the reason we are
considering this bill is because it has become obvious that
there is a greater need with minority serving institutions. And
so I think it is reasonable and logical that we proceed with
this bill, but the other part of this kind of effort to get
results, it seems to me, is start examining a situation where
other advanced learning institutions might need some of the
same kind of help.
Any comments that any of you have on trying to help make
sure that this is results oriented or that we help those
colleges and universities that need this kind of help if we are
going to have the kind of workforce in this country that is
going to accommodate our future needs?
Dr. Fennell. Mr. Chair, if I may?
Chairman Smith. Yes, Dr. Fennell.
Dr. Fennell. We are finding that in 2003, many of our
students that come to HBCUs are first generation students,
which essentially means that their parents have had no prior
education and no understanding of the use of technology, which
often purports that there is no technology in the homes unless
it is affiliated with their matriculation during high school.
This is not to say that majority or other institutions don't
have as great a need as HBCUs, but I think all of higher
education needs to look at this issue and emphasis, because in
four years of high school, coming to institutions of higher
learning and not receiving the type of preparation for
technological literacy creates a further gap in terms of the
education process.
I would offer that, however, the language and intent of the
program or the bill is identified that it is done so with the
full intent of making and creating a better technological
society, and I think that is critical and crucial, and we all
agree in regards to that regard. Now, how it is done, I think,
again, the language needs to be looked at critically, and the
components for which will be piped in the bill to achieve the
intent need to be looked at very critically. And so I think
some of us are not prepared to make specific comments as such
because that language would need to be so noted and reviewed
before there is some comfort with providing support for it.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Representative Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much for your testimony. Dr.
Humphries, do you have an idea of a set amount of money that
would address most of the needs of the institutions? I know
that most of them have very old buildings because they are old
institutions, and some of the infrastructure has been improved
and others have not. But do you have a good estimate of how
much money might be needed to bring them up to par?
Dr. Humphries. Well, we indicated in my testimony that $2.5
million per institution would be extremely helpful in terms of
attacking the deficiencies that we noted in the study. Now,
$2.5 million is an average figure. There will be some
institutions who will need more money than that, depending on
how far away they are. And there will be some institutions
needing less than that, depending on what they have done thus
far. So again, the $2.5 million would all be taken up by
historical black colleges and universities, and the core heart
of institution has been stated as in excess of 400. So again, I
would reiterate the point that was made, that we need more than
one year of funding at the $250 million level to really tackle
this problem in a significant way for the institutions who are
involved in this activity.
Could I just make one comment to your comments, Mr.
Chairman? I have listened to CNN. I have listened to--I mean,
we have a major problem in this country. We are not producing a
significant number of well-trained physicians, scientists,
Ph.D.s, and the like. And so when you raise the question about
research for the National Science Foundation, the question
becomes then, who will do the research for the National Science
Foundation dollars? Will they be American citizens or will they
be people brought in from abroad who will operate the
laboratories in our major national universities that you give
research dollars to? If the National Science Foundation does
not broaden its mission to include how to be effective in
producing from out of minority communities, Ph.D.s in physics
and biology, and mathematics, and computer sciences, and the
like, we are going to have an under-representation that will
make our scientific and technical progress dependent upon
bringing people from outside the country, and we will fail
miserably in providing opportunities for people who live inside
this country to participate at the highest level in terms of
this activity. So this is not and idle--last night on the CNN
program, it said that we cannot protect our country in terms of
homeland security and biohazards in an attack because we don't
have enough well trained physicians who have good scientific
and technical backgrounds and to go into medicine.
Chairman Smith. I totally agree, but this is your time.
Ms. Johnson. I am just listening. I agree with you as well.
Dr. Humphries. So they need to broaden their mission, and
it is not affirmative action. It is national need, security
driven.
Chairman Smith. Ms. Johnson, if you would yield, there are
two programs that we have implemented. One is the partnership
program that we have authorized $200 million to start an effort
of having research grants come in, or applications come in, of
how we best can stimulate doing a better job in the K through
12. And then with Tech Talent, encouraging all universities to
do a better job in high tech at the university level. And I am
sure Director Colwell might comment on that, too. But we will
crank your time back to five minutes, Representative Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I was--let me ask Dr.
Fernandez, do you have an opinion as to whether--we have a bill
that places this program in the Department of Commerce and one
for the National Science Foundation. Do you have an opinion of
where you think it might work best?
Dr. Fernandez. As I indicated earlier, in reviewing the
strategic plan, I felt that there was an appropriate place for
this program in the National Science Foundation. My institution
is part of a consortium in telecommunications that has received
funding under the NTIA Act from the Department of Commerce to
develop satellite and other telecommunication system. It is
called the Hispanic Education Telecommunication System, and we
have received funding strictly for infrastructure. I think part
of the issue here is that some of these funds and some of these
resources really need to be focused also on the development of
faculty and on teaching and learning, which is appropriately a
responsibility of NSF and not so much the Department of
Commerce. I mean, the Department of Commerce doesn't really
deal very directly with a lot of institutions of higher
learning, or for that matter, K-12.
So if you are talking about community colleges and if you
are talking about four-year institutions, including mine, that
have some graduate programs, and we hope to develop some of
these scientists that, you know, my colleague is talking about,
then that is why I felt that NSF was a more appropriate
location for this program.
Ms. Johnson. So you feel with the institutions where you
have been that you have had a fair share, fair opportunity, to
participate with the National Science Foundation grant
programs?
Dr. Fernandez. Some of our faculty have competed and
received some funding for that. I have no--I don't have any
specific percentages because I haven't looked at that data. We
encourage our faculty to apply, and we believe in the peer
review process. I think the issue is whether the institutions
that are sending these proposals have adequate representation
on some of these panels. And often times there is not enough
knowledge in these panels about the needs and the circumstances
in which these institutions operate.
I have encouraged my faculty to submit their names and
resumes, and some of them, indeed, have been invited to be part
of panels that end up reviewing applications, but we need to do
much more of that because it is an insufficient number.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Dr. Earvin, would you comment on
that?
Dr. Earvin. I think as the legislation takes place, we will
be guided in our response to that question as to which may be
the more appropriate agency. There are unique needs at these
institutions that we are seeking to address, and some of those
needs may more appropriately be addressed in one agency than
another. I know, for example, at Commerce, we have worked
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to
deal with capacity building at historically black institutions
and minority serving institutions, so there is a capacity
within both, I think, agencies to serve the needs, provided
that the needs are being served as they are identified under
this legislation.
Ms. Johnson. Dr. Fennell, do you have a comment?
Dr. Fennell. Yes. I would offer that I have no aversion to
placement in either entity. Notwithstanding, based on the need
of the institutions which entity would best be able to
facilitate it, I think I would offer a recommendation. And I
make specific reference to the fact that sometimes because our
HBCUs, in particular, are aged and have a need for building
rehabilitation, we would need an agency to be able to provide
and support an application process that would allow for brick
and mortar and/or building rehabilitation.
Often, because some of our programs are, being a liberal
arts institution by makeup and nature, we want to expand the
use of technology beyond just the areas of the math, science,
and engineering programs to include the liberal arts areas. I
think, again, we would also want to look at the idea that
wherever the program needs are as specified by the institution
be given some full and thorough consideration, so be it a peer
review process or advisory body process, we want to take into
consideration as to how the need has been identified by the
institution to take the priority in terms of funding
consideration. And that has been cheered by some. I think the
peer review process is essential in that the mission and the
history of many of our institutions and those groups that we
currently serve, in spite of being in 2003, again, because
there are first generations coming, there are adult learners
that are coming back to us, we need a process that would be
sensitive to and willing to educate those persons in the area
of technological developments, not just in the sciences, not
just in the area of technology, but again, across disciplines.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. My final question to each of the
panelists, have you personally served as a peer on any review
panels?
Dr. Humphries. Yes, I have.
Ms. Johnson. And in serving, do you feel that there is good
input from----
Dr. Humphries. Well, certainly, from my experience serving
as a panelist in a peer review activity, had ascertained for me
all of the concerns that have been expressed here. You can get
a fair decision out of the process because you are there and
you help explain certain kind of things that people
misinterpret as they are reviewing proposals. And therefore,
you enhance the opportunity that is a fairer presentation of
that proposal and how it is scored happens. And so there is a
lot of benefit to having people from a cross section of
institutions participate in a peer review process. And when you
have only major institution peer reviews dealing with major
institutions, they sort of take care of each other. And when
you don't have that diversity there, you don't get a clearer
picture of the fairness of how that proposal is rated in
responding to the issues that are there. So I would recommend
that diversity be added, not just racial diversity, but
institutional diversity, in terms of looking at the issues of
this grant making process that we have in effect. It is highly
desirable.
Ms. Johnson. Anyone else?
Dr. Earvin. I share that same perspective. I have served on
a number of panels and I can tell you that the deliberations
have been greatly enhanced by having that diversity, and
difference, and perspective as we peruse the proposals that are
before us.
Dr. Fernandez. Years ago, I served on a few panels in the
Department of Education to review various programs. I have not
been part of any NSF review processes.
Dr. Fennell. None for NSF. I did some review for NASA
proposals. Again, it was a peer established process.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Just before I call on Representative
Forbes, just reacting to Dr. Fennell's comments. I visualize
the possibility in this kind of program with these kinds of
goals that maybe an MSI that is predominantly a teacher
training college might have more long-term results getting some
technology equipment into that facility for a better
understanding and appreciation of the people that are going to
teach more people. The long-term effects might be greater
regardless of some researcher or science or math person trying
to evaluate that kind of consideration. So in my opinion, this
is not just for colleges that are trying to encourage science
and math. It is for every person across the population that can
go into almost any job, because the understanding, and
appreciation, and ability to use technology, regardless of your
profession, is going to be very important in our future. So
that is my comment. Representative Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very
brief. It would seem to me that just listening to your
testimony--and I apologize. I have had to be in and out because
we have a markup in another committee, but you have some
differences as perhaps where you would like to see the program
located among the four of you, but at the same time, there is
an agreement for the need for the program and for the need for
this kind of funding to overcome some of the digital
deficiencies that we have. Is that a fair assessment from--
anyone disagree with that comment?
The second question I have is I am always surprised when--I
have four children. Three of them, I have attended their
colleges when they were doing orientation--at the percentage of
students that enter a university or college and change their
career path from the time that they enter until when they
leave, and the percentages have been staggering. Do you have
any idea of what that percentage might be for your respective
institutions? Freshmen coming in, what is the average percent
that would change their career path or not have it established
when they come in and by the time they leave?
Dr. Fernandez. I don't know that I can give you a specific
percentage, but we do require our students, mostly because of
financial aid provisions, that they must declare a major as
early as possible. But that doesn't happen until at least
sometime in the second year. By the time they reach 60 credits,
they must have that, otherwise, they may--we may end up getting
in trouble with auditors because of funds.
Significant numbers, a large percentage of students, start
in one area and then decide they want to do something else. I
mean, I would say half, maybe more than that is typical.
Dr. Earvin. I would agree that it would be at least half of
the students that come to us. Having different notions about
careers and beginning to learn more about those careers once
they enter college and what is required for them, students
begin to make different kinds of considerations and shift
majors. One of the things that we have been concerned about is
creating a climate, particularly, for science education, so
that students are encouraged to stick it out and stay in those
majors. That is critically important. I think that is one of
the pipeline issues that we have to address if we are going to
address the core issue involved in this legislation.
Mr. Forbes. And that is the essence of my question, really.
I have heard some institutions say as high as 70 percent of
their students either don't know when they enter as freshmen or
change from the time that they were freshmen. And it seems like
to me, the two biggest criterion for them in determining where
they are going to go is when the interest that they have in a
particular subject matter, and also, the job opportunities that
are out there for those. And one of the things that I think is
important with this bill is it helps to foster both of those by
creating job opportunities and also by creating the interest
for the students if we do want to encourage people to go into
math and sciences. Would you agree with that or feel I am off
base on that?
Dr. Fennell. I think you are on target.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
don't have any other questions.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Honda, did you have a question? We have
about three minutes?
Mr. Honda. It won't take that long. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. And I really appreciate our experts here and
testifying here. I support the outcome of the study that
concludes that, you know, this is a great need out there. My
question to you is the focus of the studies have, generally,
been around Latinos and African-Americans. My question is, is
there room in the bill for inclusion of Asian-Americans? I know
that many people who are not from the west coast or have very
limited exposure to Asian-American populations, there is a
greater assumption, including members of our own communities,
that Asians have made it. And it is a false assumption, because
when you disaggregate the information, you will find that many
of our populations suffer the same kinds of maladies that
communities that come from recent immigrants, or who are
poverty stricken, or who are just not part of the mainstream as
of yet are not part of the studies and they fall out, you know.
I am just wondering what your thoughts are relative to APIs
[Asian and Pacific Islanders]?
Dr. Fernandez. If I may, at my institution we have a small
number of Asian students, however, because that is simply the
demographics of the borough from which we draw most of our
students. However, other units within the City University have
large numbers of Asian students, and as a port of entry, New
York has a lot of immigrant families, a lot of first generation
students coming into our school, and that sounds very similar
to the situation you would find in some cities in California.
So yes, by all means, these funds would benefit some of these
institutions and those students would also profit from that.
Mr. Honda. Is there--thank you.
Dr. Earvin. May I respond to that, also?
Mr. Honda. Sure.
Dr. Earvin. Representing HBCUs, we have never been closed
to anybody who wants opportunity, and if they come to us
needing special attention, regardless of their circumstance, we
will provide it. So we have a small Asian population at my
institution, and many of them come with the same needs that
some of the African-American and Hispanic students that we
serve, and we treat them all as students and address the needs
that they have with the resources that we are able to garner.
Dr. Humphries. With some reasonable fixed numbers, and for
those institutions that are similarly situated as we are by the
Asian Pacific Islanders, we wouldn't have any objections to
their inclusion in the bill.
Mr. Honda. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, and as
advocates, I think that we have to build that coalition. I
guess within the population, if it appears that it is targeting
certain populations, but it is not inclusive, or there is no
outreach program that says this program is for you, too, I
think that that might be something that we can think of in the
interim. I appreciate your work and I support it 100 percent in
making sure that these kinds of help and, you know, additional
kinds of funding that we need in our institutions are extended
to all these universities. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman,
thank you.
Chairman Smith. We have three votes. The Committee will
stand in recess for until about 20 minutes after 12:00, and
then we will take up our third panel with the Director of the
National Science Foundation testifying. My guess is we will
finish the vote sometime between 15 minutes after 12 and 20
minutes after 12. And with that, the Committee is in recess.
Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, just a question. When at some
point in time in this process are we able to have an amendment
to include API in the language, API institutions?
Chairman Smith. I think it is appropriate to consider
amendments and changes in this subcommittee. In two weeks we
will be taking this to the full Science Committee for a full
markup.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. Yes?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am in markup in Judiciary. Could I get
one question into this panel before you adjourn? I think there
is about seven minutes on the vote. I am going to have to go
back to markup.
Chairman Smith. Would it be possible to have you,
personally--since we only have five minutes until the close of
the vote, would it be possible if you personally asked the
individual for a minute instead of calling us back. I have,
technically, recessed it, but why don't you proceed on the
microphone and we will print in the record the response,
without objection, when we reconvene?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just--this is an issue that is very
important to me, Dr. Humphries, and I only came to make sure
that whatever issues we need to resolve in markup are
effectively handled. I am in Judiciary markup at this time and
will not be able to come back when this committee reconvenes.
So all I want to know is, is this legislation on the right
track? Is there something that we can add with respect to
amendments to make sure that it effectively answers the
concerns that the historically black colleges have with respect
to the digital divide? And also, with respect to the funds
being authorized, are we appropriately or sufficiently funding
this effort as relates to historically black, and obviously,
Hispanic serving, Native American institutions, I assume, are
included in this?
And I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. I hope that
will be put on the record as well. I thank the Chairman very
much for allowing me to ask this question.
Dr. Humphries. To respond, number one, if we get it funded
at $250 million, it is not a one-time funding. It needs to have
multi-year funding. The $250 million is a good start. The
average size grant should be about $2.5 million, and therefore,
that will only cover about 100 institutions. And so there are
about 400 institutions involved in this, and so we need to have
more money than that. And so $250 million is a good start.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And as to the reason the bill is for $250
million, a one-time grant, a one-time allotment, or over a
period of time?
Dr. Humphries. I think you would have to--I would be much
more comfortable if that were reinforced that this is a multi-
year program.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I got you. I am pulling out for you the
issues that I am concerned about. All right. And so I have got
that.
Dr. Humphries. The second thing is that we would like
strong language in the bill which assures that the peer review
committee will come from the core heart of institutions that is
being considered for funding. We want to be judged by a jury of
our peers. I mean, it really means what it says, the peers. So
we want an honest effort at making sure that the people who
look at these proposals come from HBCUs and minority,
Hispanics, and minority serving institutions. Okay? We really
like the idea of the advisory council, and would want to make
sure that there is a good representation by stellar people from
our groups on that advisory committee to advise the National
Science Foundation or wherever you put this bill with regard to
that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you, gentlemen. I think I am
now down to 21/2 minutes to be able to get to the Floor to
vote. I respect all the witnesses that are here. I won't
inquire of all of you. I wanted to clearly get on the record my
support for the intent of this legislation, but my desire to
make it where it really works for our students, our faculty,
and to reemphasize that I believe it is vital that you all are
a real part in both the digital divide, homeland security
research, and research dealing with issues such as
bioterrorism, and of course, medical research. I think that is
extremely important, and would like to close simply by saying
that I added to the bioterrorism, bioshield legislation, the
ability for these types of institutions to collaborate and
receive funding for such research. I thank you very much.
[Recess]
Panel III
Chairman Smith. The Subcommittee will reconvene from recess
and proceed back to the work before this subcommittee. And we
welcome our third panel and one of the world's greatest leading
advocates and administrators for scientific research in the
fundamental and basic area, Dr. Rita Colwell. Dr. Colwell,
please proceed with your comments.
STATEMENT OF DR. RITA R. COLWELL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION
Dr. Colwell. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the
opportunity to testify before the Committee on H.R. 2183, the
Digital and Wireless Technology Program Act of 2003, and I will
add that I do enjoy testifying before your Committee, so I
thank you, sir.
Although NSF supports the goal of assisting America's
institutions to develop fully the technological infrastructure,
and we demonstrate this through a number of ongoing
programmatic activities that are aimed at strengthening science
and engineering research and education at minority serving
institutions, we cannot support H.R. 2183 in its current form.
My written testimony, which I would respectfully request be
entered into the record, describes----
Chairman Smith. Certainly, without objection.
Dr. Colwell. Thank you, sir. It describes in detail some of
the issues raised by the bill. And although we fully support
the aims of the legislation--and I repeat, we fully support the
aims of the legislation--we believe that it may prove a better
fit in some ongoing activities in other departments than
creating a new effort at NSF. Rather than serving as a resource
for providing high bandwidth connections and wireless networks,
NSF has a much more appropriate role in finding the most
effective way to put technology to work in minority serving
institutions.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, one of my goals during my tenure
as Director of NSF is to increase representation by
underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics. I believe that we are well on the way to
achieving truly vertical and horizontal integration of all
those efforts at NSF. But obviously, we can do better. We have
been taking a close look over the past two years at improving
the participation of minority serving institutions in all of
our activities. Although we had anticipated making this
announcement as part of our Fiscal Year 2005 budget request in
February, let me share with you some of our thinking right now.
The President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request seeks a
significant increase in our funding for the Louis Stokes
Alliances for Minority Participation, referred to as the LSAMP
program. This program has been singled out as having in place a
number of best practices approaches to improving minority
science and engineering enrollment and retention. We will also
place greater emphasis on the success of the LSAMP efforts in
placing students in graduate programs and involving them in
other NSF research-related activities. We expect to continue to
see healthy growth in the budgets of this very important
program. We also look forward to using this model across all of
our research and education programs.
It has become clear to me that our efforts at improving the
participation of the MSIs, minority serving institutions, in
various programs has created a situation where no one person at
NSF is responsible for supervising and tracking the individual
efforts of our directorates. That is why I am creating a new
senior position within my office to oversee our efforts to
improve the involvement of underrepresented groups in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. Now, this position
will report directly to me, will be given the authority within
NSF to ensure that the individual directorates are held
accountable for the various pieces of this effort and will
serve as NSF's chief link to the community. I expect to have
someone in this position very soon.
In addition, although NSF's efforts at increasing support
for minority serving institutions have been successful in the
education and human resources programs, we have been lagging
behind in this effort in our research and related activities
accounts. Therefore, this new position will work with each of
the NSF's assistant directors to determine how the MSIs can
most effectively participate in our research and related
activities, including, but not limited to, activities such as
identifying specific opportunities within all directorates that
are relevant to MSIs and establishing a plan for increasing the
participation of those institutions; providing travel and
support funds for professors and students from MSIs to work in
summer positions at the NSF supported multi-user facilities;
developing a systematic program of travel grounds for
professors from MSIs for professional development activities,
including supporting MSI faculty attendants at proposal writing
workshops; and ensuring greater outreach so that MSIs have the
information that they need to be competitive in programs to
provide classroom laboratory instrumentation.
The Math and Science Partnership Initiative also serves as
an important point of entry for MSIs to the Foundation. We will
work with our MSP team to schedule workshops at MSIs to assist
them in developing viable partnerships for future competitions.
Mr. Chairman, I see these as first steps in expanding NSF's
support for minority serving institutions; they are only first
steps. I would like to develop a trusting, mutually
advantageous, long-term working relationship between every
directorate within the National Science Foundation and the
minority serving community, and I believe this new position
will do that. I also believe it will put in place the final
piece of the puzzle that is needed to ensure complete vertical
and horizontal integration of these important programs.
Let me assure you that NSF stands ready to work with the
Committee to achieve our common goal of meeting the
requirements of our 21st century workforce. Our future economic
and national security demands a coherent strategy that will
fully utilize all of America's human resource in science and
technology.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your and your subcommittee's
longstanding support of NSF. We are truly grateful. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Colwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rita R. Colwell
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before the Committee on H.R. 2183, the Digital
Wireless Technology Program Act of 2003. H.R. 2183 would establish a
new Office of Digital and Wireless Network Technology at the National
Science Foundation to administer a new grant program to ``eligible
institutions'' as defined in the bill, and would provide authorizations
of $250 million for each year for the next five fiscal years.
Let me begin by emphasizing that the National Science Foundation is
fully committed to assisting America's institutions, including those
that serve minorities and women, in developing their technological
infrastructure. As I have said before, the U.S. S&T enterprise has
failed to cultivate a vast pool of untapped talent among women and
minorities. Minorities earn only one-tenth as many S&E doctoral degrees
as their white counterparts; and whereas women comprise half of the
college-educated workforce, they continue to fill only 10 percent of
the country's engineering jobs. The requirements of the Nation's 21st
century workforce, and indeed our future economic and national
security, call for a coherent strategy that will fully utilize all of
America's human resources in science and technology.
The National Science Foundation is leading the way in pursuing such
a strategy. I believe that if we work together to strengthen and
improve existing efforts that are consistent with the goals underlying
this legislation, and to establish new activities that will further
these goals, we can make substantial improvements in the educational
and research infrastructure of all our colleges and universities,
including those that serve populations currently under-represented in
science, engineering and technology.
As you know, the National Science Foundation is authorized by the
Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act
Lto undertake or support a comprehensive science and
engineering education program to increase the participation of
minorities in science and engineering, and to support
activities to initiate research at minority institutions.
We seek to fulfill this mandate through a comprehensive portfolio
of programs that challenge the research and education community to
present NSF with ideas, plans, programs, and actions that will result
in a demonstrable gain in the number of U.S. citizens from under-
represented groups who pursue science, technology, engineering, and
math careers at every level--from high school through post-graduate
education. Through our merit-review process, we fund the most promising
ideas, and we can claim some success in this regard.
Institutions receiving funds through the Louis Stokes Alliances for
Minority Participation program (LSAMPs)\1\ funded by NSF have produced
174,000 minority Bachelor degrees in science and engineering since
1991. In 2001 alone, the LSAMP institutions produced 21,704 minority
S&E graduates--70 percent of all minority S&E baccalaureate graduates
that year. Our budget request for FY04 increases funding to the LSAMP
program by 23 percent and our Historically Black Colleges and
Universities Undergraduate Program by 43 percent. Funding for our Major
Research Instrumentation program, which assists in the acquisition or
development of major research instrumentation by U.S. institutions and
benefits a broad and diverse class of institutions, is increased by 67
percent. In addition, our Workforce for the 21st Century Initiative
recognizes the need to increase the number of scientific and
technologically literate U.S. citizens in the labor force. One of its
principal goals is to broaden participation in science and engineering.
In many institutions, including minority-serving institutions, the
focus will be on drawing elements from existing NSF programs and
challenging collaborators at these institutions to design programs that
complement integrated activities at the pre-K-12 and graduate levels to
develop an innovative and seamless route of advancement for the
students they serve. We are also investing in research to determine the
experiences and strategies that are most effective in attracting and
retaining students in careers that require fluency in math, science,
engineering or technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Many of the LSAMP alliances include Minority Serving
Institutions. However alliance participants include a broad and diverse
group of institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrating these proven strategies into any new initiatives is
crucial to maintaining momentum and propelling us further along the
path toward achieving our agreed-upon objective--to increase the number
of graduates, including under-represented minorities, in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology by providing access to
leading-edge research and educational-networking technologies to
America's institutions of higher education, including minority-serving
institutions, that can demonstrate a plan for using this technology to
increase the number of students and graduates, including under-
represented minorities, in science.
Although NSF supports the goal of assisting America's institutions
to develop their technological infrastructure, as demonstrated through
a number of ongoing programmatic activities aimed at strengthening
science and engineering research and education at all institutions,
including minority-serving institutions, we cannot support H.R. 2183 in
its current form. The following describes some of the issues raised by
the legislation. We also understand that the Department of Justice is
reviewing the legislation for possible Constitutional concerns.
NSF's existing organizational structure, widely recognized for its
efficiency and effectiveness, is already adequate to administer
programs targeted at ensuring equal access to all institutions,
including minority-serving institutions. Adding an Office of Digital
and Wireless Network Technology, as proposed in the legislation, would
constrain rather than facilitate the integration of research and
education programs within the Foundation, and would operate with a
mandate that is much more narrow than the broad, integrative approach
consistent with our present plans.
Another concern is the inherent tension between the way that the
program proposed in H.R. 2183 would be administered and NSF's
fundamental operating policies. For example, the proposed program is
comparable to our STEP (Tech Talent) Program in that it includes an
evaluation component to assess the impact of improving connectivity
with the specific outcomes, such as improving the quality of education,
increasing the number of students at target institutions who take math,
science, engineering, and technology courses, and increasing the number
of graduates with majors in these fields. However, the evaluation
process does not follow the Foundation's well-regarded merit-review
process and award-administration tradition of ensuring that experts in
the field are included in the review process.
Similarly, the proposed program would require NSF to fund every
single eligible institution that applies, regardless of merit. Although
there may very well be value in such an approach with respect to
institutions that badly need infrastructure improvement, NSF would not
be the right entity to administer it. The legislation is also silent
with respect to planning grants. I would encourage you to consider the
value of planning grants as an effective and proven way of engaging
institutions that have not previously applied for funding or have been
unsuccessful. We have found that providing funding to support faculty
and administrators to thoroughly consider the long-term costs,
commitments, and need to integrate technology throughout their
institutions results in proposals for full awards that are much more
successful and capable of meeting programmatic goals.
We also note that the President's FY 2004 Budget supports a number
of programs in the Departments of Commerce, Education and Agriculture,
and elsewhere that already address the goals of H.R. 2183 to provide
financial assistance to improve technology instruction and
infrastructure at higher-education facilities, including minority-
serving institutions.
Furthermore, the authorized spending levels in the bill are simply
not realistic. It is NSF's view that the current authorization levels
in the bill would set unrealistic expectations within the community
that could not be met. It would be nearly impossible to fund anything
near the levels currently authorized in the bill.
For example, if this program were fully funded within the FY '04
request it would represent:
Nearly half (43 percent) of our Computer and
Information Science and Engineering account ($584 million in
'04);
More than a quarter (27 percent) of our Education and
Human Resources activity ($938 million in '04);
22 percent of our requested amount for Tools ($1.112
billion), which is the budget area that provides ``broadly
accessible, state-of-the-art and shared research and education
tools;'' or
5 percent of our total budget ($5.481 billion).
Mr. Chairman, if this program were appropriated within our existing
budget request, we would be obliged to cut drastically some of the very
NSF accounts, which I have cited above, that are responsible for
tremendous advances in increasing the populations currently under-
represented in the Nation's science, engineering and technology fields.
Furthermore, we would be forced to cut other areas that this committee
cares deeply about, such as our STEP (TechTalent) program, our
CyberSecurity efforts, Noyce Scholarships, and possibly the Math and
Science Partnership Program.
Rather than serving as a resource for commodity high bandwidth
connections and duplicating existing programs, NSF has a much more
appropriate role in assessing the most effective way to integrate
emerging technology into research and educational settings in America's
institutions, including its minority-serving institutions.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, one of my goals during my tenure as
Director of NSF is to seamlessly integrate efforts to increase
representation by under-represented groups in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. As my testimony has already indicated, I
believe we are well on the way to achieving truly vertical and
horizontal integration of these efforts at NSF. But we can do better.
In looking over the range of NSF programs, I am struck by several
realities. First, we have in our portfolio a number of programs
designed to attract under-represented minorities to the fields of
science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We have viewed these
as experiments to determine a set of ``best practices'' that could
eventually be adopted--both throughout NSF and in the higher education
community.
This is fine as far as it goes. But we need to provide more
effective incentives for adopting these best practices--both within NSF
and in the educational community at large. One way NSF is addressing
the need for greater attention to under-represented groups is by
focusing attention on the broader impacts proposed activities in the
evaluation of grant proposals. In this regard, we emphasize that, as a
matter of policy, NSF returns--without review--any proposal for funding
that does not separately address broader impacts such as how well a
proposed activity broadens the participation of under-represented
groups and to what extent it will enhance the infrastructure for
research and education in STEM fields.
Second, it is important that we also address diversity needs much
more directly. As I have already discussed, demographic reality demands
that we work much harder to create a high-tech workforce that truly
looks like America. This will require a cadre of professionals,
managers and technicians in STEM-related disciplines that are
representative of the population.
We have been taking a close look over the past two years at various
efforts we could undertake to improve the participation of Minority
Serving Institutions across all of our activities. There are several
steps we will take, both immediately and across the next five years, to
respond to this need. Although we had anticipated making this
announcement as part of our FY05 budget request in February, let me
share with you some of our thinking now.
There are several steps that will be taken in the near term. As I
have mentioned before the President's FY04 budget request seeks a
significant increase in funding for the Louis Stokes Alliances for
Minority Participation (LSAMP) program. This program has been singled
out as having in place a number of ``best practices'' approaches to
improving minority STEM enrollment and retention. We will also place
greater emphasis on the success of the LSAMP efforts in placing
students into graduate programs and involving them in other NSF
research related activities. We look forward to leveraging this success
by vertically and horizontally integrating all of our research and
education programs, including LSAMP.
That alone, however, is not enough. Mr. Chairman, it has become
clear to me that our efforts to integrate programs aimed at increasing
the number of students who pursue studies in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics at all levels, while successful, have also
created a situation where no one person is responsible for supervising
and tracking the individual efforts of our directorates. That is why I
am creating a new senior position within the Office of the Director to
oversee all of our efforts to increase representation by under-
represented groups in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
The person in this position will report directly to me, will be given
the authority within NSF to ensure that the individual directorates are
held accountable for their various pieces of this effort, and will
serve as NSF's chief link to the community. I expect to have someone in
this position very soon.
In addition, although NSF's efforts at increasing support for
Minority Serving Institutions have been successful in our Education and
Human Resources programs, we have been lagging behind this effort in
our Research and Related Activities accounts. Therefore, the person in
this new position will work with each of NSF's Assistant Directors to
determine how MSIs can most effectively participate in our Research and
Related Activities, including but not limited to activities such as:
Identifying specific opportunities within all
directorates that are relevant to MSIs and establishing a plan
for increasing the participation of those institutions;
Providing travel and support funds for professors and
students from MSIs to work in summer positions at NSF-supported
multi-user facilities;
Developing a systematic program of travel grants for
professors from MSIs to attend professional meetings,
workshops, and other professional development activities;
Ensuring greater outreach so that MSIs have the
information they need to be competitive in programs to provide
classroom laboratory instrumentation; and
Establishing a program of awards to MSIs to support
faculty attendance at proposal writing workshops and to provide
summer salary awards to enable faculty to write proposals.
The Math and Science Partnership (MSP) initiative should also serve
as an important point of entry for MSIs to the National Science
Foundation. Many current MSP programs involve school districts serving
a significant proportion of minority and disadvantaged K-12 students. I
will ask the person in this new position to work with our MSP team to
schedule workshops at MSIs to assist them in developing viable
partnerships for future Math and Science Partnership competitions.
Mr. Chairman, I see these as first steps in expanding NSF support
to MSIs--but only first steps. I want to develop a trusting, mutually
advantageous, long-term working relationship between every directorate
within NSF and the MSI community, and I believe this new position will
do just that. I also believe it will put in place the final piece of
the puzzle that is needed to ensure compete vertical and horizontal
integration of these important programs.
Let me assure you that NSF stands ready to work with the committee
to achieve our common goal of meeting the requirements of our 21st
century workforce. Our future economic and national security demands a
coherent strategy that will fully utilize all of America's human
resources in science and technology.
Mr. Chairman I appreciate your, and your Subcommittee's
longstanding support of NSF. I would be pleased to answer any questions
that you may have.
Biography for Rita R. Colwell
Dr. Rita R. Colwell became the 11th Director of the National
Science Foundation on August 4, 1998. Since taking office, Dr. Colwell
has spearheaded the agency's emphases in K-12 science and mathematics
education, graduate science and engineering education/training and the
increased participation of women and minorities in science and
engineering.
Her policy approach has enabled the agency to strengthen its core
activities, as well as establish support for major initiatives,
including Nanotechnology, Biocomplexity, Information Technology,
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences and the 21st Century
Workforce. In her capacity as NSF Director, she serves as Co-chair of
the Committee on Science of the National Science and Technology
Council.
Before coming to NSF, Dr. Colwell was President of the University
of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, 1991-1998, and she remains
Professor of Microbiology and Biotechnology (on leave) at the
University Maryland. She was also a member of the National Science
Board (NSF's governing body) from 1984 to 1990.
Dr. Colwell has held many advisory positions in the U.S.
Government, non-profit science policy organizations, and private
foundations, as well as in the international scientific research
community. She is a nationally respected scientist and educator, and
has authored or co-authored 16 books and more than 600 scientific
publications. She produced the award-winning film, Invisible Seas, and
has served on editorial boards of numerous scientific journals.
She is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Medal of
Distinction from Columbia University, the Gold Medal of Charles
University, Prague, and the University of California, Los Angeles, and
the Alumna Summa Laude Dignata from the University of Washington,
Seattle.
Dr. Colwell has also been awarded 26 honorary degrees from
institutions of higher education, including her Alma Mater, Purdue
University. Dr. Colwell is an honorary member of the microbiological
societies of the UK, France, Israel, Bangladesh, and the U.S. and has
held several honorary professorships, including the University of
Queensland, Australia. A geological site in Antarctica, Colwell Massif,
has been named in recognition of her work in the polar regions.
Dr. Colwell has previously served as Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the American Academy of Microbiology and also as President
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
Washington Academy of Sciences, the American Society for Microbiology,
the Sigma Xi National Science Honorary Society, and the International
Union of Microbiological Societies. Dr. Colwell is a member of the
National Academy of Sciences.
Born in Beverly, Massachusetts, Dr. Colwell holds a B.S. in
Bacteriology and an M.S. in Genetics, from Purdue University, and a
Ph.D. in Oceanography from the University of Washington.
Discussion
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Colwell. You speak of the
new administrative position that you are instituting at NSF,
but as I have expressed some of my concerns to some of the
colleges around the country that may have as great a need as a
minority serving institution, I guess my interest would be that
we don't end up overlooking the need in this area of equipment,
and technology, and wiring, if you will, of some of those
schools that aren't minority serving institutions. And so I am
not sure what the obligation--are you just implementing this
position as sort of an affirmative action effort to make sure
that we don't overlook the needs of minority serving
institutions?
Dr. Colwell. No, sir. Mr. Chairman, this has been,
actually, in the works for some time, because we have learned a
couple of years ago as we looked across the Foundation, we
found that there were programs for minority serving
institutions in each of the directorates, but they weren't
connected. They weren't working as a team, if you will. We also
felt that the efforts in the education and human resources
directorate needed to be linked strongly with the research
components of the National Science Foundation. So we have been
working toward this direction.
In addition, we have found that we have programs that
address, as you well know, K-12 education, and undergraduate
institutions, graduate institutions, and even programs for
community colleges for continuing students returning to
college. But we haven't linked these together. That is, if you
have some very bright kids who are in the K-12 programs, we
should somehow tag them or encourage them, find a way to make
sure that they are aware of and can be introduced to the
undergraduate programs like the very successful Louis Stokes
Alliance Minority Participation. And that those students who do
very well in undergraduate school in the Louis Stokes programs,
we should be tracking those students and encouraging them to go
into graduate school. So it is an effort that has been
underway, and having an individual to ensure connectivity would
be very, very effective for the program, for the entire
Foundation.
Chairman Smith. Are you prepared--if not NSF, are you
prepared to make a recommendation where this might be
administered that might be most appropriate?
Dr. Colwell. Well, the earlier panel spoke of a technology
program in another agency which appears to be much more aligned
with what the objectives of this program would be. And I would
say that as presently constructed, the program, although
extremely important and valuable in intent, and with which we
agree, doesn't fit the NSF program structure and culture. It is
worthwhile, but it doesn't really fit NSF because the programs
we have underway are very effective, and we intend to increase
funding for those very successful programs, link them, and do
the kinds of activities that NSF does so well.
Chairman Smith. Relate to some of the members, witnesses on
the previous panel suggested that there wasn't the kind of
representation from small colleges, from MSIs, minority serving
institutions, and that lack of representation biased the end
results of what grants were approved for what universities.
Dr. Colwell. We have a difficult problem in that we
maintain an electronic database of about 270,000 reviewers, and
the potential reviewers are identified from a variety of
sources, including applicant suggestions, references attached
to proposals, published papers, scientific citation indexes,
and similar databases. In addition, when I am traveling to
institutions, such as a recent visit, a very wonderful visit,
to Tuskegee University, I asked the president and the faculty
to send me names and very brief CVs of potential reviewers to
be added to the database. And this has been a very important
mechanism and the staff do the same.
During fiscal year 2002, about 48,000 reviewers were sent
one or more proposals for review; 10,000 reviewers served as
panelists; and in all, 54,000 individuals served in a panel,
were sent a proposal for mail review or served in both
functions, and about 9,000 of these reviewers had never
reviewed an NSF proposal before. So we are reaching out. Now,
the difficulty we have is that we cannot legally demand or
require the reviewers to state whether they are African-
American, or Hispanic, or whatever, but they can voluntarily
provide that information. And so demographic information was
volunteered for only 3,507 of these reviewers; and 1,168, 33
percent of these 3,507 reviewers indicated they are members of
an underrepresented group.
Now, the low response rate overall, the many, many
reviewers, can be attributed to the inability of NSF to legally
require reviewers to provide the demographic information.
Because this information is voluntary, we can request it, but
we cannot require it. Nevertheless, I think it does give a
sample of our--particularly, in recent years, our sincere
effort to increase minority participation in panels and as
reviewers.
Chairman Smith. In your evaluation of grants through NSF
and the peer review process, there is equipment that certainly
has to be considered in who gets what grant. As far as--does
the lack of equipment and the mechanics, and machinery, and the
plans that maybe some minority serving institutions don't have,
is that an obvious discredit or discount in their ability to
get grant applications through NSF?
Dr. Colwell. There is no question that all institutions
that do not have the capacity to compete because of lack of
instrumentation. We do have the small grants for
instrumentation program which is now nearly $100 million, and
this is open to all institutions, and the minority serving
institutions do compete and are successful.
Chairman Smith. Is that predominantly based on need, the
granting of those grants?
Dr. Colwell. The need is certainly a component, but as you,
yourself, pointed out in comments earlier, sir, we must take
into account in the review process the excellence of the idea
proposed for the use of the instrumentation, as well as the
proposer of the institution being able to accommodate the
instrumentation. But need, certainly, is obviously part of it,
because if you don't have the instrument, you wouldn't be
asking for it. And being able to place it, to enable as many
students as possible to have access to the equipment, of
course, is the objective.
Chairman Smith. How would we go about--I mean, I feel very
strong on a results evaluation of whatever we do with taxpayers
dollars. How could we discover and find out the needs of some
of these universities? I mean, we have had a study on the black
serving institutions, and obviously, there is a great need
there, but we haven't done such a study, to my knowledge, on
other institutions from community colleges, to small state
colleges, to private colleges, in terms of their lack of
facilities that would accommodate the high tech age that we are
approaching.
Dr. Colwell. You touch on an area where we are deeply
interested in making a sincere concerted effort, and that is
focusing on the community colleges and the smaller
institutions, the four-year colleges, because we have learned
that is where the majority, I think about 80 percent of Native
Americans, and well over 50 percent of Hispanic, Chicano,
African-American students will be found. And obviously, we have
got to upgrade the instrumentation, but also, the capability
that is to assist in improving the science and math education
at these institutions, because they are feeding the future
science and technology personnel and workers for the workforce
for our country in this 21st century.
Chairman Smith. What would NSF do to--assuming for a moment
that the responsibility for this legislation for helping these
particular colleges is not there, what is NSF doing to help in
reducing the, if you will, digital divide problem?
Dr. Colwell. Within the computer science side, the computer
and information science and engineering directorate, there are
programs that are open to and encouraging for minority serving
institutions for infrastructure building, and especially,
through the cyber infrastructure program that we are well
underway and emphasizing. This is to build connectivity to all
institutions, all of the scientific enterprises around the
country, that is the colleges and the universities, and
especially, those that are not now connected to computing
capacity. So that is a program and a major effort for the
Foundation, which I think is very, very important and is
crucial for connectivity, particularly, for the minority
serving institutions.
Chairman Smith. Expanding on this a little bit, NSF has
tried--has programs to encourage greater minority graduates in
science and engineering.
Dr. Colwell. Yes.
Chairman Smith. Review what that program is for the
Committee.
Dr. Colwell. Well, the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority
Participation is one that we are really very proud of because
it has produced 174,000 minority Bachelor's degrees in science
and engineering since 1991. And just in 2001 alone, the LSAMP
institutions produced 21,704 minority science and engineering
graduates, and that was 70 percent of all the minority science
and engineering baccalaureate graduates that year, 2001. So our
budget request for Fiscal Year 2004 increases the funding for
that program by 23 percent, and our Historically Black Colleges
and Universities Undergraduate program, another very successful
program, by 43 percent. And so funding for the major research
instrumentation program that I just mentioned, which assists in
getting the equipment, is going to be increased by 67 percent.
So we think these are the programs proven to be effective, they
are competitive, and they work. And I think these are the
programs we want to enhance.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Doctor, for
appearing here and your testimony. And thank you for your
support of the overall goal of what we are trying to accomplish
here. One of the questions that I had in reading your written
testimony that you submitted for the record is whether or not
you are under the impression that the funding for this program
would come out of the existing budget for NSF?
Dr. Colwell. We don't see any evidence of otherwise, and
that creates a serious problem.
Mr. Forbes. So your testimony has been based on your belief
that the funding for this program would come out of the
existing NSF budget?
Dr. Colwell. Based on the evidence to date, sir, that would
be a conclusion that would be warranted.
Mr. Forbes. Okay. If , in fact, the budget, the
appropriations were to come on top of the NSF budget, would
that change your opinion?
Dr. Colwell. There is serious difficulties with the
program. Frankly, I would rather see a program more attuned to
the EPSCoR program for the minority serving institutions. There
are some difficulties in that the peer review, as I understand
the Chairman's comments, needs to be not just from a single
institution, but it needs to be representative of whatever the
proposed use and research effort is to be undertaken.
Mr. Forbes. Excuse me. Let me just clarify that. Do you
believe additional peer review needs to be in this bill?
Dr. Colwell. No. I think the NSF peer review works very,
very well, extremely well.
Mr. Forbes. And your understanding that we have an advisory
board under this bill as opposed to the peer review that you
heard testified about?
Dr. Colwell. Which I do not think is necessary, because we
do have a National Science Board which sets policies for the
National Science Foundation, and we do have advisory committees
for each of the programs. And I would like to point out,
actually--I am sorry that Dr. Humphries is not here, but Dr.
Humphries and Dr. Badonia, Deputy Director of the NSF, some
years ago, before Dr. Badonia was with NSF, he and Dr.
Humphries served on the panel that established the Minority
Participation Program which has evolved into the Louis Stokes
Minority program, and that has proven to be enormously
successful.
Mr. Forbes. But let me clarify, you have advisory boards on
other programs?
Dr. Colwell. We have advisory for the director, advisory
committees for the directorates and a committee of visitors for
the directorates.
Mr. Forbes. And they work well?
Dr. Colwell. They work well.
Mr. Forbes. You also made the comment in your written
testimony that you thought the authorized spending levels in
the bill were simply not realistic. Can you tell me what a
realistic spending level would be?
Dr. Colwell. Realistic in the sense of not having any new
money.
Mr. Forbes. Okay. Now, I want you to, if you can, tell me
what spending levels you think would be appropriate to
accomplish these goals that were here. Your statement there was
based on the fact that they wouldn't be realistic if they were
coming out of your existing budget. Is that right?
Dr. Colwell. Yes.
Mr. Forbes. But so that wasn't addressed to whether or not
the spending levels were appropriate to accomplish the goals of
the bill.
Dr. Colwell. I think that an analysis of the needs of the
institutions would be not outside of that which is listed as
overall needed, but obviously, the realism of it being
appropriated in one fell swoop is unlikely.
Mr. Forbes. Can you tell us what the direct NSF funding to
minority serving institutions was over the last decade
percentage-wise of the budget?
Dr. Colwell. 3.6 percent of the NSF funds go directly to
minority serving institutions.
Mr. Forbes. And do you feel that that was adequate to
accomplish the goals that we are talking about here?
Dr. Colwell. Obviously, I do not, because we are working
very hard to improve programs, and also, outreach. That is, we
have learned that over the last few years that workshops which
we, our staff, hold to assist and advise institutions which
have not been successful or have not even applied to NSF
before, and therefore, are unaware of the processes involved,
that these workshops can be very, very helpful. And so we have
had these workshops in states like Alabama and Mississippi,
where institutions are located, and at minority serving
institutions around the country, to improve their capability of
competing.
Mr. Forbes. And Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask one more
question? I know my time has expired, but you have written that
there were 174,000 degrees that had been given to minorities
based on the program that you cited. Can you tell me what the
number of those degrees were that came from historically black
colleges?
Dr. Colwell. I will have to get you that precise number.
Mr. Forbes. If you could, and the other question, and you
can follow up in writing on this one as well. One of my
concerns, also, is we talk about what we are doing in K through
12, but I would like your feeling on how we keep those students
involved in math and sciences when they get to historically
black colleges if we don't have the technology there to be able
to continue to feed that interest and keep them involved in it.
Dr. Colwell. Technology is critical. There is no question
about it. But I think what is more important is to have the
connectivity, K-12, with universities. We have established the
GK-12 program, and that program has proven to be enormously
successful, because it funds graduate students who are pursuing
their degrees in science or engineering to spend 20 hours a
week not in the undergraduate classes but actually in the
elementary, middle, and high schools, as a source of
information, but more importantly, as mentors and role models.
And we have found that this is very, very important because it
allows these young children to identify with these students who
are going on to become engineers and scientists in a way that
wouldn't be done just through reading about it in a book.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Colwell. So these kinds of program are very important.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Forbes, if you would allow a colloquy
between you and I?
Mr. Forbes. Sure.
Chairman Smith. Where did the $250 million come from, how
was that figure derived?
Mr. Forbes. Well, I think that was a figure that came from
discussions with the minority serving institutions. And again,
as you heard some testimony, it came from averages. I think you
could get testimony that would say you would need twice that
amount of money. You would also have people that say you could
get by with half that amount of money. But we felt that based
upon the testimony that we had heard from individuals, that the
$250 million allocation was a good start in how we could bridge
these gaps that were there. And you heard testimony today that
I think was similar to that.
Chairman Smith. I guess I should--allow me to express some
of my concerns. The Federal Government is going to be more and
more, if you will, strapped for funds in the future, and I
expect that future budgets are going to be very lean as we
accommodate our largest deficits in history. We are now 227
years old, and the first 200 years we accumulated $500 billion
of debt. Now we are going deeper in debt, $500 billion a year.
So if it is true that we are faced with very tight budgets in
the future, and NSF and our research effort is going to share
in those tight budgets, I would be particularly concerned that
an additional responsibility put in NSF would endanger some of
our efforts in our partnership effort to promote better K
through 12 education in science and math. It could very well
jeopardize our Louis Stokes effort that we have in NSF, and
certainly, even jeopardize some of our efforts in Tech Talent.
So I would be very wary of assigning this additional
responsibility to NSF that might endanger some of those
existing programs. And currently, it would be my preference
that it go into the new administration that we have assigned to
Commerce and the Technology Division. Maybe it goes to NIST,
but I guess just expressing my personal concerns that we not
endanger some of the good programs that we have in NSF, and I
think I hear you, Dr. Colwell, saying you agree that that is a
potential danger?
Dr. Colwell. Sir, you have become a very strong advocate,
and as a result, you know very well how NSF works. And I do
agree with you, sir.
Chairman Smith. Is there--do you have anything else that
you would like to add to the comments of the previous panel?
Dr. Colwell. No, sir. I think that it has been very
valuable to discuss this very important issue, and I would like
to assure you that the programs that we have at NSF we are very
proud of and we have no intention of doing anything except
strengthening them. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Smith. Thank you very much for your patience today
and for waiting for us to vote. And if there are no other
questions, this subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation
Question submitted by Representative J. Randy Forbes
Q1. You have written that there were 174,000 degrees that have been
given to minorities based on the program that you cited [Louis Stokes
Alliances for Minority Participation]. Can you tell me what number of
those degrees were that came from historically black colleges?
A1. The data captured for the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority
Participation (LSAMP) shows in excess of 174,000 baccalaureate
graduates since the inception of the program in 1991. In 2001-2002, the
most recent reporting period for the program, 5006 degrees were awarded
by Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) of the 22,057
total degrees awarded in LSAMP. HBCU graduates represents approximately
50 percent of the 9,496 degrees awarded to African American students in
LSAMP. During that reporting year 61 HBCUs were in partnerships in the
LSAMP Program.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. After reviewing the summary of Total Awards to HBCUs (FY 2000), I
noticed that almost $2.8 billion was given to institutions of higher
education (IHE). However, I am somewhat concerned with the column title
Awards to HBCU as percent of Total Awards to IHE. It seems that HBCU
received just under $36 million, and only 1.29 percent of the total
funds given to IHE. Do you find this figure disturbing? How do you
intend on increasing funding for HBCU (or MSIs for the matter) to a
more representative proportion of the total IHE funding?
A1. NSF agrees that HBCUs and other Minority Serving Institutions
(MSIs) have the potential to participate at higher levels within the
existing NSF research and education programs. We believe that the
potential for increased participation by MSIs in NSF funding hinges on
the continued development of research capacity at these institutions.
In support of this effort, we maintain a comprehensive portfolio
that includes several significant programs that support research as
well as build the research and educational capacity of HBCUs and other
MSIs. These programs include:
The HBCU-Undergraduate Program which has funded 47
awards, a total of $68.9 million since 1998, to improve the
quality of undergraduate education in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) at HBCUs. NSF has requested
a 43 percent increase in the budget for HBCU-UP in FY 2004.
The Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation
(LSAMP) program supports 63 HBCUs in their efforts to increase
the numbers of minority STEM baccalaureate graduates. NSF has
requested a 23 percent increase in the budget for LSAMP in FY
2004.
The Centers of Research Excellence in Science and
Technology (CREST) program currently provides $8.7 million for
state-of-the-art research activities at HBCUs, Hispanic-Serving
Institutions (HSIs), and other MSIs.
The Research Infrastructure for Science and
Engineering (RISE) is a relatively new program, which supports
the development of research capacity at HBCUs that currently
offer doctoral STEM degrees. RISE started with $2.7 in FY 2002
and is now funded with $5 million for FY 2003.
Participation in these and other programs by HBCUs has been
significant. For example, since 1998 seventy-one different HBCUs have
received research and education funding from NSF. Sixty-six different
HBCUs have participated in the education and human resource programs at
NSF (totaling $252 million since 1998)--an average of 56 awards to
HBCUs per year. Fifty-six different HBCUs have also received research
and development grants from NSF (totaling $92 million since 1998)--an
average of 61 awards to HBCUs per year--most of these institutions
participate in both research and education programs.
NSF is committed to increasing the participation of HBCUs in all
programs within the foundation. We are taking action to leverage our
success in these programs by vertically and horizontally integrating
all of our research and education programs. For example, building on
the portfolio of best practices that has been created in LSAMP, we are
developing programmatic linkages to the Alliances for Graduate
Education and the Professoriate Program (AGEP) to create a seamless
pathway from undergraduate, to graduate, to the professoriate.
Q2. In your view, how should awards be selected under the program
established by H.R. 2183? That is, what kinds of criteria should be
used and what mechanism should be used to apply the criteria?
A2. Although the proposed program under H.R. 2183 would require funding
every single eligible institution that applies, regardless of merit,
the National Science Foundation would likely use its well-regarded
merit-based peer review procedures to select awards under the program
in order to ensure that funds went to high quality projects that were
truly ready for implementation. The peer review mechanisms that are in
place at the NSF have proven to be valuable tools in the determination
of quality and impact of the projects that are funded by NSF. The merit
review criteria are: 1) What is the intellectual merit of the proposed
activity? and 2) What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
The Foundation's peer review process and award-administration ensures
that diverse experts in the field are included in the review process.
Maintaining the quality of the projects under this proposed program
would also require the flexibility for NSF to support planning grants.
Planning grants have been proven as effective ways to assist
institutions to delineate long-term strategies for their own specific
institutional development and to improve the quality of proposals.
Q3. Since minority serving institutions vary greatly in their current
educational and research capacities and in their financial well-being,
how can the program be structured to ensure an equitable allocation of
resources among the disparate institutions?
A3. Within our merit review system, the National Science Foundation has
several tools in place that can address the continuum of institutional
capacity at MSIs. These include planning grants for those that would
benefit the most from time and money to plan how best to use the
technology funds. In addition, we have a tradition of supporting
institutions through targeted technical assistance workshops to help
them develop high quality proposals. In this case this technical
assistance would include strategies for long term technology planning.
NSF also has extensive experience with programs that serve MSIs
that have varying institutional STEM capacity. For example,
institutions that are not heavily focused on research, including
community colleges, participate in programs like HBCU-Undergraduate
Program and Tribal College-Undergraduate Program, which focus on
increasing the numbers of under-represented students participating in
STEM and the quality of STEM education. Institutions that are already
producing quality STEM research but can contribute even more,
participate in Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology
(CREST) and Research Infrastructure for Science and Engineering (RISE),
which help to build the caliber of the research through the
establishment of research centers. In addition, we have programs that
encourage collaboration between institutions at every level of capacity
such as Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP) and
the Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate Program
(AGEP).
NSF also has plans to create a new senior position within the
Office of the Director to oversee all of our efforts to increase
representation by under-represented groups in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. The person in this position will also be
charged with ensuring equitable access to NSF programs by MSIs with
varying levels of institutional capacity.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
From the issue dated June 27, 2003
Playing Catch-Up
A bill in Congress could give minority institutions new money for
computer technology
By Andrea L. Foster
It's hard for Steve Villanueva, Manager of computer services at
Virginia Union University, to fathom that the nearby University of
Richmond has 62 people to assist with the development, use, and
maintenance of campus technology. Virginia Union, a historically black
college with half the enrollment of the University of Richmond, has a
computing staff of four.
Mr. Villanueva recently spoke with a technology administrator at
Richmond and learned that the institution has not only a help desk for
problems with users' machines, but also separate departments to support
administrative software, the campus network, and academic technology.
Richmond also has a staff for Web development and a security
administrator. The university is a private institution and serves 3,400
students, about 12 percent of whom are members of minority groups.
``I have one person who runs my whole network, maintains the
server, and is in charge of desktops,'' says Mr. Villanueva, who has
been working at Virginia Union, a Christian college, for almost four
months. The university's information-technology department is made up
of Mr. Villanueva, two data-management specialists, and a network
engineer.
The technological disparities between Virginia Union and the
University of Richmond are representative of a much larger problem.
Minority educators have long worried about a technology gap between
colleges that serve mostly white students and financially strapped
black colleges. Support-staff sizes are only one area of concern.
Others include the quality and amount of black colleges' computer
equipment and the robustness of their campus networks.
Now federal lawmakers are taking note of the gap and trying to do
something about it.
Competition for Grants
On April 30, the U.S. Senate voted 97 to 0 to approve the Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of
2003. The measure would allow colleges that serve primarily black,
Hispanic, and American Indian students to share $250 million in
technology grants for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
The money, to be made available through the National Science
Foundation, could help colleges purchase computer hardware and
software, set up new wireless networks, and upgrade existing hard-wired
networks. Colleges eligible for the money would compete for grants.
Sen. George Allen, the Virginia Republican who sponsored the bill,
said the need for it was underscored in a report on information
technology at historically black colleges, issued by the U.S.
Department of Commerce in 2000. The report, ``Historically Black
Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of Networking and
Connectivity,'' was prepared by the National Association for Equal
Opportunity in Higher Education (known as NAFEO) and was based on a
survey of 80 such colleges.
The report said that most black colleges lagged behind their white
counterparts in preparing students for careers in an increasingly
technological society.
Among the areas of concern: student access to networking and
computing resources, colleges' development of strategic plans for
technology, colleges' awareness of network security, and faculty
members' use of the Web and instructional software in their courses.
``I am saddened to learn from our research that fewer than 25
percent of our students own their own computing resources,'' wrote
Henry Ponder, the former President of NAFEO, in the report.
``This means that in spite of the best efforts of historically
black colleges, students must often wait hours at labs to use computers
in order to gain access to the Internet and the World Wide Web,'' he
added.
The Senate bill is now awaiting action in the U.S. House of
Representatives, where it was introduced last month by Rep. J. Randy
Forbes, a Virginia Republican.
It's no coincidence that Virginia lawmakers have taken an interest
in the technological divide that separates white from black colleges.
Virginia has five of the 107 historically black colleges in the
country: Hampton University, Norfolk State University, St. Paul's
College, Virginia State University, and Virginia Union.
The federal money for computer technology in the legislation,
however, will not be enough to bring most black colleges up to the
level of white colleges.
For example, Virginia Union has a $555,000 information-technology
budget this year, about $400,000 of which is federal money from Title
III of the Higher Education Act. The University of Richmond has an $8
million technology budget.
Wireless, or Not?
Virginia Union's administrators aren't counting on getting money
from the legislation, since a similar bill stalled in Congress last
year. However, they say any funds they do get through the legislation
would improve the quality of education for students and make the
university more competitive.
``I don't know that it will necessarily level the playing field,''
says Walton D. Meekins, director of information services at the
university. ``But it will greatly enhance where we are now.''
Virginia Union's president, Bernard W. Franklin, has spoken
frequently of the need to make his campus technologically advanced.
When he was inaugurated in September 2000, he said he envisioned a
campus where students could connect to the Internet while sitting under
a tree, and where every classroom is a computer lab.
Nearly three years later, that is still just a vision.
In November 2000, Virginia Union was one of the first historically
black colleges to set up a wireless network on its campus. The
university wanted to be on the cutting edge of technology, says Mr.
Meekins. But because only 15 percent of the students own computers,
most students rely on about 250 machines in the university's five
computing labs to connect to the Internet. That has led some to
question the usefulness of the campus-wide wireless network.
At the University of Richmond, seven miles west of Virginia Union,
96 percent of students own computers. Some of Richmond's buildings are
connected to a wireless network, but the university is debating whether
to make dormitories wireless. Students can use more than 400 Windows
and Macintosh machines in computing labs around the campus.
Costly Laptops
More than two years ago Virginia Union considered requiring all
students to have their own laptops. For now, that idea has been
abandoned. More than 90 percent of the colleges' students receive
financial aid, so asking them to spend more than $1,000 each for
laptops would be too burdensome, says Mr. Franklin.
``We want to remain fiscally competitive in terms of attracting
students,'' he says.
Virginia Union does provide all 84 full-time faculty members with
IBM laptops, however. And when a local computer vendor offered laptops
to students at the beginning of the year at a small discount, 80
students took advantage of the program, says Mr. Meekins.
Tuition at the university for the forthcoming academic year is
$16,866, including a $310 technology fee.
Unlike Virginia Union, the University of Richmond has no technology
fee for students. Technology costs will be included in the $24,940
tuition for the 2003-4 academic year. The university requires only its
law students to have laptops.
Despite the technological challenges Virginia Union faces, Mr.
Meekins says he is not discouraged. The university is focused on
developing ``quality students'' and ``productive members of society,''
he says.
Mr. Meekins says faculty members and students are especially proud
of an instructional tool the university purchased called Videodidact
that is available in a computer laboratory in Pickford Hall. It permits
students using the machines to see exactly what an instructor is doing
on a computer at the front of the room. Virginia Union hopes to expand
the technology to other computing labs, says Mr. Meekins.
Even though only a fraction of Virginia Union students own
computers, university administrators do not cite equipping students
with computers as one of their priorities if the technology bill
pending in Congress ends up providing the university with any money.
Instead, the administrators talk about other goals. They want to
expand their fiber-optic network, provide training to faculty members
and students in the use of technology, have storage space on the
network for students' data, build more computing labs, and keep at
least one computing lab open 24 hours a day. They also want to purchase
course-management software from Blackboard Inc. for organizing online
materials.
The University of Richmond, meanwhile, is in the process of
upgrading to version 6 of the Blackboard software.
Virginia Union's strategic plan for 2000 through 2005 calls for,
among other things, establishing a distance-learning program and
creating a teaching-and-learning center for faculty members that would
promote technology in the classroom.
One of the college's short-term goals is trying to move the network
operating system from the outdated Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000.
``It's a $30,000 project,'' says Mr. Villanueva, ``We have the
software. We need someone to help install it.''
Institutions that serve minority groups have a recurring problem
with attracting and retaining high-quality technology staff members,
says David A. Staudt, director of the Advanced Networking Project With
Minority-Serving Institutions. The project works with colleges serving
primarily black, Hispanic, and American Indian students to improve
Internet connectivity, network technical support, training, and use of
the Internet for teaching and research. The program was set up by
Educause with a four-year, $6 million grant from the National Science
Foundation.
``A lot of these schools are not in prime locations, particularly
tribal colleges,'' says Mr. Staudt. ``They're way the heck out there,
and it's hard to attract people with the skills needed.''
And employees who develop expertise on the job may eventually leave
for better paying work, adds Mr. Staudt.
``They get bought off by somebody who will pay them twice as much,
or more,'' he says. ``These guys could make as much as some of the
presidents of these colleges.''
Kathryn J. Monday, vice president for information services at the
University of Richmond, and Doug West, the university's director of
telecom, media support, and user services, describe the summer on their
campus as a busy time for technology improvements. Three-year-old
computers are being replaced. And a construction crew is busy
installing 10 multimedia classrooms and preparing to install wireless
hubs in the new Weinstein social sciences building.
Over the next 18 months, 27 multimedia classrooms will be installed
in Gottwald Science Center, adding to the 34 multimedia classrooms
already dotting the campus. The library houses six digital-video-
production workstations, and a technology center that allows students
to produce professional-grade advertising posters.
Virginia Union has no multimedia classrooms.
Richmond's promotional literature says it provides every student
with ``virus-protection software, space for a personal Web page, and
most importantly, space on a file server to store critical documents.''
``We also provide access to the latest in hardware, software, and
peripherals and assistance in learning how to use this equipment. This
ensures that students are always using the most recent technology as
they complete their academic assignments,'' the literature continues.
The university offers a number of other technology amenities, as
well. For example, students can check out digital cameras for academic
assignments. And Richmond faculty members and students can gain access
to the Internet2 consortium's high-speed network through a partnership
with Virginia Tech.
At Virginia Union, Mr. Meekins and Mr. Villanueva say they don't
know what Internet2 is.
Like Virginia Union, other historically black colleges struggle to
keep pace with colleges that serve primarily white students.
About 10 percent of students own computers at Virginia State
University at Petersburg, a historically black public institution 27
miles south of Virginia Union. The institution does not have access to
Internet2 and is using an outdated administrative-software system. The
college has 44 multimedia classrooms, but has had trouble training
faculty members in how to use the equipment.
A recent visitor to the campus saw a chemistry professor using a
traditional overhead projector and transparency to show students
formulas--even though the classroom's multimedia lectern was equipped
with a document camera.
M. Hadi Moadab, director of academic technology at Virginia State,
says the university's network system is secure. But the same visitor
used a machine in one of the computing labs on the campus to connect to
the Internet without being prompted for identification. According to
network-security experts, requiring all users to have proper
identification is a basic tenet of network security.
Virginia State and Virginia Union administrators say they are
constantly playing catch up to the latest technological advances that
neighboring white institutions can offer.
But it all comes down to dollars, the administrators say.
``When you look at what we're trying to achieve with the funds we
have,'' explains Mr. Meekins, the money is ``really not enough.''
http://chronicle.com
Section: Information Technology
Volume 49, Issue 42, Page A27