A Forum for Ideas
IPR forums give public a chance to meet authors, ask questions

Fall 2005, Volume 27, Number 1

Jason DeParle

In addition to its regular schedule of events—colloquia, lectures, and policy briefings, the Institute for Policy Research also held three public forums last year at which invited journalists and authors discussed welfare reform, growing commercialization of higher education, and current trends in American politics.

A Shot at the American Dream

New York Times journalist Jason DeParle spoke about the seven years he spent following one extended family for his book American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End Welfare (Viking, 2004). In it, DeParle intertwines a bird’s-eye view of Washington’s drive to end 60 years of what Bill Clinton called “welfare as we know it” with an intimate look at the impact of welfare reform on the lives of Angela Jobe, Jewell Reed, Opal Caples, and their children.

DeParle recounted how higher welfare grants and cheaper rents lured Angie, Jewell, and Opal to Milwaukee, the soon-to-be epicenter of welfare reform. Quickly, they were pushed off the rolls, two of them into full-time, low-paying jobs as nurse’s aides with few benefits. Though some like Angie clearly found personal fulfillment, it was clear that welfare reform was not going to change the “economic and social trajectories of their lives or move these women appreciably closer to the American Dream,” DeParle said.

Those for reform argue that these former welfare mothers had become role models for their kids by holding down a job. “The problem is that I just didn’t see any evidence of it playing out,” DeParle said. The kids, instead, are left on their own. “Rather than making [Angie] a role model, they took her away from them,” he said.

IPR discussant Mary Pattillo, Arthur Anderson Professor of Research and Teaching, pointed out that the already serious problems of people like Angie and Jewell are compounded by the high price of rent and draconian requirements for housing vouchers.

In reviewing child-welfare policies, IPR Faculty Fellow Ann Orloff, professor of sociology, explained that most other countries have more generous benefits than does the U.S.—though there is a global trend to link them with policies that emphasize employment for all adults.

This event was sponsored by the Joyce Foundation.

Commercialism in Higher Education

	From left: Indrani Mukharji, Jennifer Washburn, and Dan A. Lewis

On May 4, Jennifer Washburn, a fellow at the New America Foundation and author of University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education (Basic Books, 2005), debated her book’s central premise: Growing commercialism in U.S. universities threatens their autonomy and public mission of education and research, chipping away at the “academic realm so critical to democracy.”

Washburn attributes the rise of “academic commercialism” to four key factors: passage of the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which grants universities the right to patent and license federally funded research; the rise of biotechnology, which is more commercially viable; cuts in public funding; and growing pressure for universities to create local Silicon Valleys.

In her view, a “dangerous profit motive” and short-term commercial focus has infiltrated the academic-industrial complex, creating pervasive conflicts of interest. She pointed to universities running their own venture capital funds and industry-sponsored drug trials where companies try to bury or discredit unfavorable study data—or even sue the university researchers. Washburn estimated that up to a quarter of all university research is industry influenced.

Indrani Mukharji, executive director of Northwestern’s Technology Transfer Program, emphasized that most universities do not engage in technology transfer for short-term benefits. She cited some of the many innovations these programs have brought to market for public benefit: vaccines, drugs (Cis-Platin and Taxol), and Internet search engines (Lycos and Google). The license revenue the university receives is shared with the inventors and their departments, and also covers the costs of the technology transfer activities and other university needs, she noted.

Dan A. Lewis questioned whether a “pristine academic environment” has ever existed within universities. He sees universities as fumbling towards a new equilibrium that balances corporate and academic interests. He surmised that the bigger threat comes from the erosion of the university’s legitimacy as an independent institution devoted to higher learning, brought on by attacks from the political left and right. Lewis is an IPR faculty fellow and professor of human development and social policy.

Who Will Control the Next Era of American Politics?

John Judis

After 1968, the Republican party dominated American politics, thanks to the “solidly Democratic South becoming Republican,” said John B. Judis, senior editor at The New Republic, at an IPR forum on May 19. Yet recent evidence might foreshadow a shift in the Democratic party’s fortunes.

Stagflation, a backlash against the feminist and gay rights movements, opposition to civil rights, and a “feeling of defeatism” in U.S. foreign policy led to the Republican rise starting in 1968. By the early 1990s, however, the recession, rising tolerance, and the U.S. position as the world’s remaining superpower had chipped away at the Republican majority. By this time, three demographic groups had turned increasingly Democratic: single, college-educated women; minorities; and urban “knowledge” professionals (e.g., dentists, nurses, and computer programmers).

Judis believes that the Democrats were on track to regain the majority even earlier than expected until Sept. 11, 2001. The ensuing “global war on terror” pushed defense and security, issues that typically favor Republicans, to the forefront of voters’ minds. Of the 42 percent who identified national security as their major concern, 70 percent voted for Bush. “That’s the election right there,” he said.

Given the closeness of the 2000 and 2004 elections, plummeting support for the War in Iraq, and a meek economy, he thinks the Democrats stand a good chance of taking back the majority within three to four election cycles. Judis is the author of five books including The Emerging Democratic Majority with Ruy Teixiera (Scribner, 2002).

IPR discussant Benjamin I. Page praised Judis’ analysis and agreed that there are opportunities for Democrats. But he warned that a purely demographic analysis does not take into account that political parties are “moving targets,” with evolving strategies and elite party cadres who might not necessarily align themselves with the public. “The Democrats have been doing a terrible job of telling the working class exactly how they will help them in terms of jobs, education, and health care—the solid bread-and-butter New Deal issues,” he said. Page is Gordon S. Fulcher Professor of Decision Making and an IPR faculty associate.

IPR Faculty Fellow Monica Prasad, the second discussant, pointed out that social groups also do not stand still. For example, it is not clear that African Americans and Hispanics will continue to vote Democratic. In interviewing working-class voters, she found many who espoused New Deal ideals, but thought it was not credible that a multimillionaire like John Kerry with five homes would champion programs for the poor. “Nominate a candidate who embodies your values,” she advised Democrats. She is assistant professor of sociology.