COLUMN: Oklahoma should reconsider its priorities
Published: August 31, 2010
A state legislator once referred to higher education as the black hole of the state budget. Money goes into funding the University of Oklahoma and the other public universities, but nothing ever comes back.
Traditionally public universities have functioned as investments in the future of the state; providing access to better instruction and learning should lead to a more educated, more innovative, and ultimately more productive state.
Of course, this only holds true if students stay in the state after they earn their degree and therein lies the problem: many students leave Oklahoma after graduation, especially the most talented.
While numbers on this phenomenon are not readily available, my own observations and those of several of my peers match the observations of the aforementioned legislator: students come to the University of Oklahoma — oftentimes because of its affordability — with the intention of leaving the state as soon as they graduate.
One of the reasons it is so affordable is that the taxpayers of Oklahoma contribute to its operating costs. So, in effect, students who pursue this path have a substantial portion of their education paid by the taxpayers of this state, then flee the state before returning on the investment.
However reprehensible this might seem, it is difficult to blame these students for leaving. The state of Oklahoma — particularly its government — is a laughing stock throughout the country and, as an aid to one state legislator once told me, has made the state number one in all things bad.
According to the Census, the state consistently scores among the bottom five on education spending. The state government, hellbent on flexing its tough-on-crime muscles, manages to spend around half a billion dollars a year on prisons. The Department of Corrections reports $300 million of this number goes just toward incarceration, and most inmates are non-violent drug offenders.
Eschewing rehabilitative programs that would be cheaper and decrease recidivism rates, the state government instead chooses to impose increasingly higher sentences on the incorrect view that doing so will deter crime.
These policies have caused the prison population in Oklahoma to double in the last 20 years and have bestowed upon the state the shameful distinction of having the highest female incarceration rate in the entire world.
In addition to these disappointing budget priorities, the state legislature also has a habit of wasting its time taking positions on divisive cultural issues that often wind up wasting more of the state’s money.
On the ballot this November are SQ 751 and SQ 755. SQ 751 would declare English to be the state language — this in “Native America.” SQ 751 would outlaw courts from using Sharia law— you know, just in case.
Lawmakers have tried, in the past, to erect Ten Commandment monuments that were subsequently disallowed in the courts. Many have also unceasingly tried to impose policies to shame women seeking abortions, most of which also get thrown out in the courts.
This is where the state focuses its efforts despite very crippling and very real problems like high poverty and high rates of domestic abuse.
Why would someone with any other option choose to stay in a state that seems to pride itself on being the most regressive and xenophobic state in the country? That is not to say that everyone in the state supports these representatives or that the state has nothing else to offer, but it is clearly the dominant force.
Some of the more prideful Oklahomans might reply with some simple retort saying that the students who do not like the state or its dominant culture should just leave and that the state will do well without them anyways.
This self-assuring approach does nothing to recover the millions of dollars in free education that Oklahoma is putting into students who leave for better states. It also ignores that it is probably the more successful and talented students who leave, causing the state to suffer a serious brain drain.
The state can try to figure out ways to keep students here after graduation by providing monetary incentives for those who become employed in Oklahoma or other similar policies. But, these policies will fail to address the cause of the exodus and will consequently fail to solve the problem.
Until Oklahoma becomes more interested in turning to progressive policies to improve the conditions in the state, those who can will continue to leave.
In short, if we want to solve the budget black hole that is higher education, we need to solve the hell hole that is Oklahoma first.
– Matt Bruenig, philosophy senior
More like this story
- OUR VIEW: Look at the facts — vote 'no' on SQ 744
- OUR VIEW: SQ 751 — 'Official English' — alienates
- OUR VIEW: State question results surprising, elected officials predictable
- To the Editor: Passing SQ 744 could result in tuition increases
- State Question 751 may word all state 'official actions' in English
Comments
soonerboomers 1 year, 5 months ago
"the OU"
Come on Daily.
euknemarchon 1 year, 5 months ago
Matt Bruenig's model for the sort of person that leaves Oklahoma after college is something like...
I doubt that's why people leave Oklahoma. I mean, I don't want to say the Oklahoman government is /as good/ as that of the state of Texas, but Texas is the largest red state in the union, and it has seen both considerable growth over the last 10-20 years in addition to considerably greater stability in the face of recessions compared to progressive strongholds, like, say, California.
Talented students leave Oklahoma after graduating because it is not near the center of cultural, technological, or financial production in the United States. Texas and other states have more gravity in these fields. "Progressive" policies that Bruenig mentions, including prison reform, may have some positive effect on improving Oklahoma's standing in these arenas, but projects that the state has undertaken, like Bricktown and support for the biotech industry, have helped us and will be the kind of projects that help us in the future. An important point is that these projects - the kinds of projects that move Oklahoma closer to the center of cultural, technological, and financial influence - require substantial support from the private sector.
While the conservative politics of Oklahoma undoubtedly annoy progressives, they're not what keep people leaving Oklahoma. Conservatives leave Oklahoma, too. In short, Bruenig's analysis is short-sighted and ignores important factors in why people move places.
justsomeguy13 1 year, 5 months ago
euknemarchon,
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.
williamcombs 1 year, 5 months ago
euknemarchon = spot on
soonerboomers 1 year, 5 months ago
The explanation of bruenig's argument is off. Think of it more like this. You are out of college, statistically you are readying yourself for raising a family. Where do you want to raise that family? in the place that spends almost nothing on education so that it can keep flooding the prisons with drug users? which is then doesn't rehabilitate but drops back into your community? a state full of poverty which leads to a whole host of social issues? etc.
This is what I read the point being. Not that people leave because of some political scoreboard, but because the backwardness of the state has very real impacts on the life you lead, especially women and especially someone directly out of college who has to contend with building families and all of that jazz.
kdbp1213 1 year, 5 months ago
what euknemarchon said. maybe euknemarchon should be an ou daily columnist?
DeeinOK 1 year, 5 months ago
I agree with Matt Bruenig's observations. Soonerboomer's assessment summarizes it well. Euknemarchon posts an opinion that a few people are willing to embrace yet, there is nothing in that post that is factually supported. At least Mr. Bruenig's opinion is based loosely on some statistics.
Let me give you just two statistics to think about.
According to the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center, September, 2006 report, "nearly one in seven adult males and one in every 30 adult females in Oklahoma have either been to prison or supervised on probation."
Here is another. 75% of Oklahoma High School Students Can't Name the First President of the U.S. http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=11141949
I would venture to say that neither of those facts taken by themselves have the potential to run graduates out of the state; however, looking at them in conjunction with each other could possibly have that effect. Why would you stay if your goal was to raise a family and live the American dream?
Even those that are strictly career minded need a state that is receptive to growth. States with the highest growth rates often have the best infrastructure--roads, schools, etc. The community has to work to attract economic development. The underlying tone of the community dictates whether or not the community is receptive to doing that to begin with. Mr. Bruenig states correctly that the mentality of many in this state is, "don't let the door hit you..." Combine that with the ultra conservative policies, the lack of an educated workface and not many companies are willing to risk relocating to the area.
While I agree Bricktown and the Biotech industry are both positive signs for Oklahoma, it is a mere drop in the bucket to what needs to be done to see significant growth. In the meantime, I am sure that the good leaders of Oklahoma have their hands full worrying about how they can ban abortion, ban gay marriage, and ensure you will never have to press one for english.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID