COLUMBIA, S.C. — Dr. Peter T. Mitchell, president of Columbia College from 1988 to 1997, is returning to the institution as its interim president upon Dr. Carol Moore’s retirement announcement, effective immediately.

Dr. Moore served as president of Columbia College for four years and guided the school through significant transitions, including the recent announcement of coeducational day programs beginning fall 2021.

“The Columbia College family thanks President Moore for her tireless effort to make our school a special place for so many. She has taken on repositioning Columbia College with leadership and strength,” Board of Trustees Chair Toby Goodlett said. “Since her arrival in September 2016, Dr. Moore has been invaluable to our mission. We respect her decision to step away at this time to care for her family and her health and we want to express our appreciation for her unwavering dedication to our school and mission,” Goodlett added.

“SCICU is grateful for Dr. Moore’s leadership at Columbia College and with SCICU’s board of trustees,” said Jeff Perez, SCICU President and CEO. “We wish her much happiness in her retirement.”

The challenges associated with transitioning to coeducational programs, combined with the need to provide a comprehensive response to COVID-19, convinced Columbia College trustees to select a familiar voice for their interim president.

Dr. Mitchell served as Columbia College’s fourteenth president, leading the institution for nearly 10 years. Under Dr. Mitchell’s leadership, Columbia College created the Women’s Leadership Institute, built the Johnnie Cordell Breed Leadership Center, and helped secure funding for the Barbara Bush Center for Science and Technology.

In addition to his previous leadership at Columbia College, Dr. Mitchell has significant experience as president at three other independent colleges located in three different geographic regions. Before joining Columbia College, Mitchell was president of Lasell College in Newton, Mass. from 1983 to 1988. After his leadership at Columbia College, Mitchell went on to serve as president at his alma mater Albion College, a Michigan liberal arts college.

After retiring from Albion College, Dr. Mitchell founded Proactive Transition Management, LLC, a consultancy specializing in strategic planning, enrollment management, fundraising, and executive searches for independent colleges and universities.

Mitchell holds an Ed.D. in higher education leadership from Northeastern University. He earned an Ed.S. in information systems technology at Indiana University, an M.A. in English language at the University of Michigan, and a B.A in English and religion from Albion College.

Columbia International University showcased their new William Jones Global Business and IT Center for SCICU’s spring board meeting on February 25.

SCICU trustees and college/university presidents were welcomed by CIU President Dr. Mark Smith. Dr. Scott Adams, dean of CIU’s school of business, highlighted CIU’s investment in and transformation of the Monticello Road corridor surrounding the CIU campus.

Dr. Rusty Monhollon, president and executive director of the S.C. Commission on Higher Education, joined SCICU’s presidents for the semi-annual Council of Presidents breakfast.

The Council of Independent Colleges (CIC) vice president for state council programs Carol Schuler led trustees through a presentation on higher education access and affordability, closing with an interactive session on answering the general public’s questions on cost perceptions and myths related to private colleges. Schuler’s presentation gave trustees tools to confidently answer questions regarding the continued and long-term value of independent higher education.

Schuler also announced the selection of SCICU as a recipient of a CIC capacity-building grant. SCICU will use the funding to continue the regional trustee appreciation receptions started in 2019.

Eddie Shannon, SCICU executive vice president, announced that SCICU had also exceeded CIC’s challenge grant for discretionary scholarships. CIC challenged SCICU to raise $20,000 in new or increased gifts designated for support of emergency student financial aid on SCICU campuses. With the help of signature sponsors Comporium, Nephron Pharmaceuticals, Williams & Fudge, and numerous individuals, SCICU exceeded CIC’s challenge and received matching funds of $10,000.

In the business portion of the board meeting, development, finance, and public policy committee chairs updated trustees on fundraising efforts, YTD budget, and legislative advocacy efforts.

Rick Moul, executive director of PASCAL (Partnership Among S.C. Academic Libraries), the meeting’s featured luncheon speaker, shared with trustees the collaboration fostered by PASCAL between academic libraries across South Carolina.

“PASCAL levels the playing field for students and faculty at all member institutions,” Moul explained. “We provide a higher level of academic content at a dramatically lower cost than individual libraries could do on their own.”

Since 2004, PASCAL’s statewide electronic library programs have generated nearly $140 million in cost-avoidance for member libraries.

Based on the professional knowledge, talent, and enthusiasm demonstrated by undergraduate researchers at this year’s SCICU Research Symposium, these students have promising futures in fields as diverse as biology, chemistry, music, public health, art, and environmental science.

The Feb. 20, 2020 SCICU Research Symposium gave students from SCICU member colleges and universities the opportunity to showcase the findings of their research conducted March-December 2019.

Milliken & Company again hosted the SCICU Research Symposium at their customer center in Spartanburg. The day-long event featured multimedia presentations on research topics that included medical issues, literature, history, and psychology.

SCICU, with the support of generous donors, funded over $77,000 in support of undergraduate student research projects during the 2019 research cycle. Donors supporting the 2019 Undergraduate Student/Faculty Research Program include the Belle W. Baruch Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, Bon Appetit, Russell D. Cook, Daniel-Mickel Foundation, Mills B. Lane Foundation, Milliken Foundation, and Nephron Pharmaceuticals, and Sodexo.

Student Research Project Selection Process

In the SCICU Undergraduate Student/Faculty Research Program, prospective undergraduate researchers face submission and project constraints similar to what they will experience in their professional careers.

Each November, SCICU issues a call for undergraduate student research grant requests through the chief academic officers at its 20 member colleges and universities. Undergraduate researchers, supported by subject-area faculty mentors, submit detailed proposals to SCICU for project funding. The deadline for submitting proposals to SCICU is usually late February.

Based on the subject areas of student projects submitted for funding consideration, SCICU amasses a team of subject-matter experts from its 20 member colleges and universities. The review team then meets in late March to select research projects for funding. After the review panel conducts a rigorous review of proposed research methods and funding requests, SCICU announces project selection, and students can begin research immediately. All research activities conclude usually by Dec. 10.

After the conclusion of research activities in December, students submit one-page abstracts to SCICU by the end of the following January. At that time, the clock is running down quickly for the researchers to submit their presentation materials for A/V compilation required for the upcoming symposium scheduled for late February.

2020 SCICU Undergraduate Student/Faculty Research Program

The deadline for submitting project proposals to SCICU for the 2020 research cycle was February 28, 2020. The next step in the 2020 research cycle will be the competitive review of projects for SCICU funding in late March. Prospective student researchers will be informed of project funding by mid-April, with research permitted to commence immediately.

Message from SCICU President and CEO Jeff Perez –

I am going to tell you the story of an indomitable young woman. She refused to be contained by the many obstacles she encountered in her efforts to found a school, succumbing only to the limitations her own body imposed.*

Throughout her life her determination and faith would be rewarded in the most unexpected, and most fortunate, ways.

She was born in 1876 to a poor black farming family living in Georgia during Reconstruction. Her schooling was limited, but she persisted. As an early teen while reading under an elm tree in town, a breeze carried a scrap of newspaper to her feet, and on it was an advertisement for the Tuskegee Industrial School. So began her relationship with Booker T. Washington, the founder of Tuskegee, and the inspiration for this young woman’s vision for starting her own school.

The advertisement explained that “poor colored boys and girls could get an education by working their way through school.”

Her own family intended to impose upon this young woman an acceptance of their limited circumstances. They did not consider her going away to school possible, or desirable. She would not let the matter drop and eventually they relented.

Tuskegee wasn’t free and her family had nothing. She took on washing to earn pennies that became the few dollars she had when set off for Tuskegee. She still did not have enough to enroll as a day student, and worked in the kitchen while attending night school. Her physical frailty did not permit for this arrangement but Mrs. Washington herself heard of the young woman’s travails and arranged for a benefactor to provide a scholarship, and for lighter duties. The capacity of her body would never match the breadth of her will.

Inspired by the example set by Booker T. Washington, upon graduating – at the ripe old age of 22 – she immediately set about founding her own school. She wanted to establish in South Carolina an institution where young black men and women would break out of the poverty into which they were born by learning a trade and at the same time receive an academic and moral education that would equip them to become leaders of their people.

First she needed a location for the school. She tried three different towns and encountered white bigotry and suspicion within her own community.

At the first location her work was burned down. Twice.

At the second location, the white community was openly hostile and black leaders were threatened by the forthright young woman who they knew little about. Timber was cut down on the land she intended to buy, rendering it useless.

She encountered much the same at the third location. The very committee of locals she formed to assist her bought the land for the school so that she could not.

At this point no one would have thought less of this young woman if she concluded founding a school for poor black children in rural South Carolina was beyond her physical capacity. She persevered through her most trying hours nourished by her faith and driven by a determination to create hope and opportunity where there had been none.

At the fourth location, in Denmark, South Carolina, she found a more receptive, though not entirely welcoming, community. She also found benefactors who treated her fairly, buoyed her spirits, and provided the financial support she previously could only have dreamt possible.

State Senator S.G. Mayfield, impressed by a letter of endorsement from Booker T. Washington himself, became the young woman’s local champion at the expense of his own political future. He made land available for her to buy and spoke for her in the white community. Her first school in Denmark enrolled 14 students who were taught in a single room with a few chairs donated by neighbors. It was a start but she wanted much more.

As always, the money at hand did not match her ambitions. She had grown accustomed to walking miles, in good weather and bad, to local churches in order to raise just a few dollars, and often less. Her clothes were threadbare and her shoes worn because everything she had went toward the school.

At one point she had visited 66 churches around Denmark and had raised a total of $184.53. She gave Sen. Mayfield a $200 down payment for the land, cabin, and shanties that in 1897 became the Denmark Industrial School. Amazingly, she had 236 students for the first term.

The facilities were not nearly adequate. In an effort to raise additional funds she travelled north in search of donations, but to little effect. After a fruitless day going door-to-door in Philadelphia, she slept on a bench at the train station. At home vocal opposition from a local black pastor who felt threatened by this young woman’s success resulted in the local churches closing their doors, and purses, to her.

But her travels north produced the name of a gentleman who might be willing to help. After initial correspondences she traveled to New Jersey and made her case in person.

She had been tapping her limited physical reserve to scratch together a few hundred dollars, but Ralph Voorhees gave her thousands for a larger tract of land, buildings and equipment. The school was named Voorhees Industrial School and its founder was Elizabeth Evelyn Wright.

The school prospered, offering its students a wide variety of trades to learn with 17 teachers, a working farm, dormitories, and an infirmary, named the Booker T. Washington Hospital.

Voorhees Industrial School was Elizabeth Evelyn Wright’s life – she married the school’s treasurer. And having given every bit of herself to the school, her brief life ended with the completion of her task.

Elizabeth Evelyn Wright died in 1906, nine years after her school opened in Denmark, at the age of just 34.

Elizabeth Evelyn Wright’s impact on so many thousands of lives through what became Voorhees College was recognized this month by her induction into the South Carolina Hall of Fame.

I can think of no more poignant way of commemorating Black History Month than by recalling the life and vision of Elizabeth Evelyn Wright.

*In telling this story I relied on Tuskegee to Voorhees, written in 1922 by Dr. J.F.B. Coleman, who knew and deeply admired Elizabeth Evelyn Wright.

We have some good news from the General Assembly — the House version of the state budget was approved by the Ways and Means Committee and is very supportive of independent higher education:

• Fully funds the Tuition Grant Commission request for $1.1 million in recurring funds.
• Adds $600,000 from the CHE Needs-Based Aid program.
• Fully funds Merit Scholarships ($326 million).
• Fully funds PASCAL’s $1.5 million request.

Unfortunately, the Tuition Grants Commission did not receive the one-time $270,000 request it made for a new computer system, nor the recurring $200,000 to maintain it.

Other than the state budget the General Assembly has been consumed with K-12 education reform, and deciding what to do with Santee Cooper. And that will not change for the near future.

The Executive Budget –

After considerable progress in Congress toward increasing federal financial aid, President Trump has submitted his FY2021 budget request, and it includes similar deep cuts as he proposed last year.

As you review the following summary, keep in mind that these proposals are most likely “dead on arrival” in Congress:

• Hold Pell Grants flat, keeping the maximum at $6,345
• Eliminate the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG)
• Cut Federal Work Study by $680 million
• Cut TRIO by $140 million
• Eliminate the $365 million of GEAR UP funding, with the program’s activities consolidated into a State Student Support Block Grant.

The budget request also proposes changes to student loan programs intended to save $170 billion over 10 years through higher costs for students and limiting access to borrowing from federal programs:

• Eliminate subsidized loans for low-income students
• Eliminate Public Service Loan Forgiveness
• Limit graduate student borrowing
• Create a single Income-Driven Repayment plan
• Eliminate the standard repayment cap

While included in the executive budget, these proposals actually could not be implemented through the budget process. Because student loans are an entitlement program, and not funded annually, these proposals would need to be enacted through the Higher Education Act reauthorization process or a budget reconciliation process.

NAICU Conference and Advocacy Day –

I’d like to share with you the highlights from this week’s 2020 NAICU Conference and Advocacy Day.

First and foremost I would like to thank Spartanburg Methodist College President Scott Cochran for taking the time to join me in DC. In our numerous Capitol Hill visits Scott was a powerful and articulate voice for independent colleges and universities in South Carolina and for our students.

Scott’s leadership was recognized by his colleagues at the NAICU board meeting who elected him to serve on the NAICU Executive Committee. For my part I was elected to the Executive Committee of the NAICU partner organization of state executives, known as NAICUSE.

I think the four major takeaways from our visits are:

• There was widespread support for federal financial aid programs. No one expressed opposition to the Pell Grant Program, nor the increase in the spending bill passed in December.
• The “Pell Plus” initiative (HR 4608) was received with interest. You’ll recall Pell Plus provides third and fourth year students who are on track to graduate in four years would be given access to the same total Pell Grant amounts that are currently made available only to those who take six years to complete, with the proviso that the school would have to match that additional grant. Greater in the third and fourth years would encourage graduating on time and obviates the need for student loans in the fifth and sixth years of study. However, because the bill spends the Pell grants faster, the Congressional Budget Office will no doubt identify a “cost” to it, which would result in resistance from fiscally conservative legislators. We endeavored to put the cost in context: we can spend the money now, when it will have the greatest impact, or later.
• We found little support for “free college” in the SC delegation. Scott and I stressed that assigning federal dollars for “free” public college, be it at the two- or four-year levels, freezes out students at private colleges, who in South Carolina make up nearly one-quarter of the undergraduate student population. We also warned that giving block grants to states, with discretion to spend the money, is no better as the South Carolina constitution prohibits the state from directly aiding private institutions.
• We learned that Senate staff have been working Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization, and a bill may pop out at any time. The House version, the “College Affordability Act,” has 139 sponsors and may reach the floor in March. However, issues like Title IX remain a stumbling block. Additionally, the determination that HEA does not sunset has removed the pressure of a deadline.

Scott and I also attended an informative, if unsettling, session on “paying” college athletes. As you are no doubt aware, California now has a law on the books that prohibits the NCAA, other conferences or California-based member schools from enforcing a rule that prevents a student-athlete from being compensated for the use of their “name, image or likeness.” The proposal also allows a student-athlete to engage an agent. The bill has an effective date of January 2023.

What concerns the NCAA is that there are a number of states with pending legislation which are of varying impact – different states with different rules would be a nightmare for the NCAA to navigate. For example, here in South Carolina, Sen. Marlon Kimpson has introduced legislation that, along with the “name, image, likeness” language, would allow student-athletes to earn hourly wages for their time in games and practices, as well as earn $5,000 for each year they participate in their sport while maintaining good academic standing. Those dollars would go into a trust and be awarded in a lump sum (capped at $25,000) after they graduate.

What should concern higher education institutions is that the various pieces of legislation do not distinguish between Divisions I, II, and III, and includes other athletic associations.

Not surprisingly, the NCAA is working with Congress on a federal solution. Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Mitt Romney (R-UT) announced the formation of a bi-partisan working group to facilitate ongoing discussions about student-athlete compensation and related issues.

Freedom of Speech –

The U.S. Department of Education has issued proposed regulations regarding both President Trump’s executive order on freedom of speech on campuses, and the executive order creating the “White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative.”

The proposed regulations would require private higher education institutions receiving certain federal research and education grants (federal student aid programs are not included) to certify they have complied with their free expression. Institutions that refuse to certify or that violate this condition would be subject to penalties for noncompliance. If an institution doesn’t receive a federal education or research grant, they won’t be subject to these requirements.

Moving forward, private higher education institutions would be deemed to remain in compliance unless there is a final, non-default court judgment finding that the institution or its employees violated the institution’s policy regarding freedom of speech or academic freedom.

Faith and Opportunity Initiative –

NAICU has provided the following summary of the elements of the proposed regulations that impact faith-based institutions ability to participate in Title III programs of the Higher Education Act:

• Ensure nondiscrimination against faith-based institutions by clarifying that such institutions are eligible to receive grants or sub-grants on the same basis as other entities;
• Remove requirements that faith-based institutions provide assurances or notices that are not required of other institutions;
• Clarify that faith-based institutions are entitled to retain their independence from the government and their ability to carry out their missions consistent with religious protections in federal law; and
• Remove language prohibiting institutions from using funds for otherwise allowable activities that relate to religious worship and theological subjects and replace it with narrower language.

The proposed regulations also provide more direction as to how institutions could demonstrate they are controlled by a religious organization, for the purpose of seeking a Title IX exemption.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (courtesy converse.edu, postandcourier.com, and wistv.com) — SCICU’s two single-gender member institutions, Columbia College and Converse College, will make history fall semester 2021 with the addition of co-ed residential undergraduate program options.

Columbia College President Carol Moore and Converse College president Krista Newkirk both cite research indicating declining admissions interest in women-only institutions.

“Fewer than two percent of female, college-bound high school students will even consider a single-gender college,” said Converse College President Krista Newkirk. “We see the addition of a co-educational undergraduate residential component as a strategy not to just recruit men, but to reach more women who otherwise would not consider Converse.”

In broader terms, a significant decline in the number of high school graduates beginning in 2025 provides additional reason for Columbia and Converse to add co-ed undergraduate admissions. Studies from 15 single-gender colleges who added a co-ed component showed a two-year average enrollment growth of 74 percent and a four-year average growth of 86 percent for incoming classes.

While Columbia and Converse are both embracing co-ed undergraduate admissions, both indicate expectations of maintaining women-only programs.

“Our recommendation to the Board was presented with guidance to preserve and maintain a women’s leadership component at Converse,” said Laura Chappell Bauknight, ‘87 alumna and Converse College Trustee. Bauknight led the Converse Ad Hoc committee as they closely examined other former women’s colleges that have implemented a co-educational structure. Committee members visited select college campuses that have made similar transitions, and reviewed input and feedback from alumnae, faculty, staff, students and friends of Converse.

“We are excited about the possibility of making Columbia College a place that can accommodate all students in the future,” said Columbia College Board Chair Toby Goodlett. “With our rich history, our quest is to always provide learning opportunities that prepare students for a successful future.”

Founded in 1854, Columbia College has admitted men for night classes and graduate programs since 1947. The student body was 79 percent women in fall 2018, with 272 men enrolled in evening, online and graduate degree courses at that same time.

“Converse made history when we first opened our doors. We made history, when in the face of skyrocketing higher-education costs, we reset our tuition, reducing it by 43 percent. We make history again as we announce that Converse is opening its doors to all academically-qualified students who strive to be exceptional,” stated Converse President Krista L. Newkirk.