Podcast Summary: Future of Freedom — "Neal McCluskey & Rick Hess: How Should the Department of Education Be Addressed?"

Host: Scott Bertram
Guests:

• Neil McCluskey, Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom
• Rick Hess, Senior Fellow and Director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute
  Release Date: February 14, 2025

1. Introduction

In this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scott Bertram delves into the contentious debate surrounding the U.S. Department of Education. Bringing together contrasting viewpoints, Bertram facilitates a discussion with Neil McCluskey and Rick Hess to explore whether the Department should be abolished or reformed.

2. Neil McCluskey Advocates for Abolishing the Department of Education

Constitutional Concerns

McCluskey opens the conversation by challenging the constitutional legitimacy of the Department of Education. He emphasizes that the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government authority over education:

“Nowhere in the Constitution do you see the word education...some people will say, oh well, the general welfare clause lets the federal government do anything in the interest of the general welfare. But we know that's not correct.” ([01:15])

Historical Context

He traces the Department's origins back to post-Civil War America, highlighting its minimal role until the 1960s:

“We didn’t really see the federal government involved much until right after the Civil War... until the 1960s when you have the Great Society.” ([02:30])

Influence of the National Education Association (NEA)

McCluskey attributes the establishment and persistence of the Department to the political activism of the NEA:

“The NEA became a union... They said, look, we now are, we're a union... support a candidate who says they'll create a US Department of Education.” ([05:00])

Impact of Federal Policies

He criticizes policies like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind, and Common Core for federal overreach:

“We were on the verge of having the federal government essentially dictating what every kid... would learn in the country. And that is hugely dangerous.” ([07:00])

Current State and Higher Education Issues

McCluskey points out the Department’s inefficiency, especially in managing student loans and grants:

“The department is largely incompetent at doing that, which we saw with its failure to simplify the student aid form...” ([10:00])

3. Consequences of Abolishing the Department

Handling Existing Programs

Addressing concerns about the future of student loans and Pell Grants, McCluskey proposes transferring these responsibilities to the Department of Treasury:

“What happens to students who currently are receiving those funds... would simply be repaying as they are now, except they would be working with the Department of Treasury...” ([11:37])

Federal Government’s Role in Academic Performance

He argues that federal oversight should be limited to addressing clear instances of discrimination, not general academic performance disparities:

“It shouldn't be the concern of the federal government unless it is clear that some state is discriminating against particular groups of people.” ([13:52])

4. Opposing Views and Potential Risks

Use of Department for Political Agendas

McCluskey warns against leveraging the Department to enforce conservative policies, such as bathroom regulations and DEI initiatives:

“In a free society, we don't want government... making decisions for everybody about what is right or wrong or good or bad. That should be left to free society.” ([17:07])

Risk of Perpetual Federal Interference

He cautions that using the Department for ideological battles can lead to ongoing federal intervention and instability:

“You then keep us in perpetual federal warfare and on a perpetual yo-yo where every time there's a change of administration... is a bad idea.” ([17:07])

5. Rick Hess Argues for Reform Over Abolition

Department’s Dual Role in K-12 and Higher Education

Hess acknowledges that while abolishing the Department might seem appealing, most federal education programs would remain active as they are authorized by Congress:

“These programs would still be there because Congress has authorized the programs and appropriated the funds.” ([20:39])

Focus on Higher Education and Student Loans

He highlights the Department’s significant involvement in managing student debt, criticizing the inefficiency and mishandling under recent administrations:

“It holds more than a trillion dollars in outstanding student debt... transferred $400 billion from taxpayers to people who had borrowed money...” ([22:45])

Proposed Reforms for the Student Loan Program

Hess advocates for shifting student loan management to the Department of Treasury and implementing measures to ensure colleges demonstrate value:

“Representative Virginia Fox... passed the College Cost Reduction Act, which says that if programs aren't providing a decent return... colleges should have skin in the game.” ([22:45])

K-12 Education and School Choice

He discusses potential reforms to enhance school choice and reduce federal micromanagement:

“Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Education to revisit those formulas... ensuring that dollars are following the children to the schools they're attending.” ([25:45])

Accreditation Reform

Hess proposes dismantling the higher education accreditation cartel to foster competition and innovation:

“The Trump administration has the authority to let new accreditors come into the space... discontinue accrediting agencies mandating DEI.” ([28:28])

Addressing Hostile Campus Environments

He emphasizes the need for the Department to actively enforce civil rights laws to combat discrimination and harassment on campuses:

“President Trump issued... executive orders... Department of Education will be going out, spotlighting institutions tolerating or engaging in this behavior.” ([31:17])

6. Efficiency and Future Prospects

Streamlining the Department

Hess believes that even without abolishing the Department, significant improvements can be made by reducing bureaucracy and enhancing efficiency:

“Department of Education has over 4,000 employees... failed three consecutive audits... we could come out of this with a much leaner workforce.” ([34:48])

Potential for a More Responsive Department

He is optimistic that a reformed Department could better serve educational needs without the excessive overhead:

“I think most observers would say... we are in a much better place than we were four years ago.” ([34:48])

7. Conclusion

The episode presents a nuanced debate on the future of the Department of Education. Neil McCluskey argues for its abolition based on constitutional principles and inefficiency, while Rick Hess contends that reforming and streamlining the Department would better address current educational challenges without dismantling essential federal programs. Both perspectives highlight the complexities of federal involvement in education and the ongoing struggle to balance governmental oversight with educational freedom.

References:

• Neil McCluskey: Cato Institute
• Rick Hess: American Enterprise Institute
• Future of Freedom Podcast: America's Talking Network