U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–165PS 2003

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

CHRIS BELL, Texas

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

ZOE LOFGREN, California

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

JIM MATHESON, Utah

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

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

(III)

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. Ferna ́ndez, 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

Page

IV

Dr. Larry L. Earvin, President, Huston-Tillotson College—Continued

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

(1)

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.

2

3

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 Ferna ́ndez 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. Ferna ́ndez 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

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

• The 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.

5

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 perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:38 Nov 08, 2003 Jkt 088165 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\070903\88165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
6

cent 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;

7

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.

8

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.

9

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 socalled 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

10

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 InstituVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:38 Nov 08, 2003 Jkt 088165 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\070903\88165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

tions 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

12

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

13

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

14

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 MinorityServing 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

15

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 Hispanicserving 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

16

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.

17

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

18

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

19

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 HisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:38 Nov 08, 2003 Jkt 088165 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\070903\88165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
20

torically 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,

21

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

22

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.

23

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 Ferna ́ndez 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.

Ferna ́ndez 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.

Ferna ́ndez, 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.

24

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,

25

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

26

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 OfVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:38 Nov 08, 2003 Jkt 088165 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\070903\88165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
27

fice 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 expandVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:38 Nov 08, 2003 Jkt 088165 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\070903\88165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
28

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.

ing 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.

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 accesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:38 Nov 08, 2003 Jkt 088165 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\070903\88165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

sible 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.

30

• 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.

31

2The 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.

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.

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.

32

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 postsecondary 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.

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

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.

33

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.

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

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.

102

103

104

105

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Humphries, thank you. Dr. Hernandez.

STATEMENT OF DR. RICARDO R. FERNA ́ NDEZ, PRESIDENT,

HERBERT H. LEHMAN COLLEGE-CUNY

Dr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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 Ferna ́ndez 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

106

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

107

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. Ferna ́ndez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICARDO R. FERNA ́ NDEZ

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. Ferna ́ndez, 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.

108

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 fastestgrowing 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 twoyear degree programs to four-year and advanced degree programs for Hispanic higher education students, many of whom are first-generation college students from lowincome 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.

109

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

110

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 precollegiate 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 MinorityServing 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

111

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 nonHispanic 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 MinorityServing 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 highVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:38 Nov 08, 2003 Jkt 088165 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\070903\88165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
112

er 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. FERNA ́ NDEZ

Prior to his appointment in 1990, Ferna ́ndez 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. Ferna ́ndez 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.

Ferna ́ndez was a Research Fellow at UW–Madison’s National Center for Effective

Secondary Schools.

113

114

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Ferna ́ndez, thank you. Dr. Earvin.

STATEMENT OF DR. LARRY L. EARVIN, PRESIDENT, HUSTONTILLOTSON 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

115

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,

116

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

117

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

118

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.

119

120

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.

121

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.

122

123

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.

124

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

125

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 interrelational 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.

126

• 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.

127

128

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. Ferna ́ndez, 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. FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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

129

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

130

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.

131

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I was—let me ask Dr.

Ferna ́ndez, 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. FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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. FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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.

132

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

133

been greatly enhanced by having that diversity, and difference, and

perspective as we peruse the proposals that are before us.

Dr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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. FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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

134

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. FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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?

135

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 AfricanAmerican 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

136

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 multiyear 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 2c 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]

137

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.

138

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:]

139

1Many of the LSAMP alliances include Minority Serving Institutions. However alliance participants include a broad and diverse group of institutions.

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 collegeeducated 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

to 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.

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,

140

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

141

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;

142

• 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.

143

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 repVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:38 Nov 08, 2003 Jkt 088165 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\070903\88165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
144

resentation 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

145

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.

146

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.

147

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 percentagewise 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 underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:38 Nov 08, 2003 Jkt 088165 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\070903\88165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
148

graduate 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

149

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.]

(151)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

152

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.

153

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 foVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:38 Nov 08, 2003 Jkt 088165 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\070903\88165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
154

cused 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.

(155)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

156

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

157

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.

158

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 sys- tem 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.’’

159

http://chronicle.com

Section: Information Technology

Volume 49, Issue 42, Page A27

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168