18-02-2025
Opinion: House Bill 265 risks individual student choice
Recently, the Legislative Higher Education Appropriation Subcommittee met to discuss House Bill 265. This legislation 'requires each degree-granting institution to create a strategic reinvestment plan to reallocate funding from certain programs and divisions of the institution to certain programs and divisions that merit additional investment.'
Furthermore, HB265 'authorizes declining use of reinvestment funds to phase out reduced or eliminated programs or divisions of institutions.' Specifically, institutions of higher education must demonstrate 'alignment with the statewide system of higher education … and investment in meeting localized and statewide workforce demands and securing post-graduation employment outcomes; and enrollment-based funding.'
While higher education budgets are often inflated and rising tuition costs for our students demand accountability, this legislation, as it stands, is not a solution to the problem. Like others, I fear humanities programs will feel the brunt of the proposed cuts and that HB265 will further erode our universities as places where graduates not only prepare for satisfying careers, but also learn curiosity, critical thinking and civic engagement — all core outcomes of a well-rounded education.
More critically, HB265 compromises individual student choice, placing degree options and critical learning opportunities in the hands of administrators and state boards whose judging criteria may or may not reflect student interest and need. Healthy societies and economies thrive when we recognize and nurture the many gifts and talents each of us have to offer.
In his classic work 'The Road to Serfdom,' twentieth-century economist Friedrich Hayek cautioned against extensive state planning. Such planning limits an economy's potential to a single vision for the future and may ultimately constrict individual freedom and initiative. 'From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.'
Hayek recognized the need for planning and regulation, but only so far as it maximized what he called the 'spontaneous forces of society,' not to be equated with simple laissez-faire economics. 'If we want to create new opportunities open to all, to offer chances of which people can make what use they like, the precise results cannot be foreseen,' he expressed. Extreme centralized planning concerned Hayek because he believed such planning imposes the values and morals of the planner onto society itself. At this point, 'the state ceases to be a piece of utilitarian machinery intended to help individuals in the fullest development of their individual personality and becomes a 'moral' institution — where 'moral' is not used in contrast to immoral but describes an institution which imposes on its members its views on all moral questions, whether these views be moral or highly immoral.'
House Bill 265 submits higher education to a level of centralized planning that reflects Hayek's concerns. It presumes to hold higher education accountable to a pre-foreseen vision of Utah's future economic landscape, seriously limiting that vision in the process. We cannot possibly know today what skills and talents our economy will need tomorrow. Limiting degree offerings or where students can obtain degrees, due to low student enrollment, perceived lack of employment prospects, or other criteria will shortchange us in the future when a new economy requires the very training we myopically eliminated.
Finally, as Hayek warned, HB265 imposes the viewpoint or morals of higher education administrators and state boards upon our student population, ultimately pre-determining for them appropriate courses of study and potential career paths.
We are the Beehive State. According to the Utah State Capitol website, 'the beehive symbolizes the Utah community as each person in Utah works together to support and help one another and to create a successful industry.'
We should continue this tradition by supporting higher education in ways that recognize and value individuality and worth, allowing students the right to discover, develop and train their special talents and gifts as they see fit. Our future economy rests on it; our future society demands it.
