Since the 1960s and especially after the creation of the Department of Education in 1979, the federal government has played an ever-increasing role in higher education — usually to make it worse. Now that there is a serious counterattack against the terrible mess that higher ed has become, many Americans have been looking to the feds to clean things up.

While the federal government has some role to play in reversing the policies that have made college so expensive and often so intellectually toxic, it’s a mistake to think that the federal government is going to be the savior. So argues Jenna Robinson in today’s Martin Center article. We should instead look to the states.

One lesson from the Trump era is that, while Uncle Sam has an important role to play, higher-education governance is primarily a state responsibility. Public universities are created, funded, and regulated by state governments. State legislatures and governing boards have direct authority over curriculum requirements, governance structures, admissions standards, spending and tuition policy, and intellectual climates (including policies on free speech, academic freedom, and institutional neutrality).

One lesson from the Trump era is that, while Uncle Sam has an important role to play, higher-education governance is primarily a state responsibility. Public universities are created, funded, and regulated by state governments. State legislatures and governing boards have direct authority over curriculum requirements, governance structures, admissions standards, spending and tuition policy, and intellectual climates (including policies on free speech, academic freedom, and institutional neutrality).

For one thing, she correctly observes, under the Constitution, education is not a federal responsibility.

Moreover, state policymakers are better able to diagnose problems and come up with solutions than are federal politicians and bureaucrats.

What’s more, state reform efforts are often more nimble than federal policymaking. Federal rulemaking can take months of notice-and-comment procedures and is often tied up in litigation. What might take years in Washington can be done much more quickly and effectively at the local level. The rollback of DEI policies serves as an informative example. Recent federal efforts to end DEI initiatives were swiftly challenged in court. In response, the Department of Education abandoned its attempts to address civil-rights violations masquerading, it said, as “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” In comparison, Florida was able to make sweeping changes to DEI programs in a single legislative session.

What’s more, state reform efforts are often more nimble than federal policymaking. Federal rulemaking can take months of notice-and-comment procedures and is often tied up in litigation. What might take years in Washington can be done much more quickly and effectively at the local level. The rollback of DEI policies serves as an informative example. Recent federal efforts to end DEI initiatives were swiftly challenged in court. In response, the Department of Education abandoned its attempts to address civil-rights violations masquerading, it said, as “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” In comparison, Florida was able to make sweeping changes to DEI programs in a single legislative session.

Robinson is right. The federal government cannot be relied upon to improve higher education.

© National Review