Introduction

Although state funding for public higher education has declined in recent decades (State Higher Education Executive Officers [SHEEO], 2022), public colleges and universities continue to receive a substantial portion of their funding from states. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, roughly 22% of revenues for higher education institutions came from states, on average (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).Footnote 1 Further highlighting the importance of state higher education funding, the levels of funding state policymakers allocate to public higher education institutions affect numerous socially relevant outcomes, including student borrowing behaviors (Chakrabarti et al., 2020) and postsecondary attainment levels, both generally and for racially minoritized populations specifically (Monarrez et al., 2021).

For these reasons, researchers have long been interested in understanding the phenomenon of state funding for public higher education (e.g., Chatterji et al., 2018; Doyle, 2012; Foster & Fowles, 2018; Li, 2017; Lowry, 2016; Ortega, 2020; Tandberg, 2010; Tandberg et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2020; Weerts & Ronca, 2012). This line of inquiry has overwhelmingly examined the supply side of higher education funding, focusing on factors at the state- (e.g., Li, 2017; Tandberg, 2010), interstate- (e.g., McLendon et al., 2006), or individual- (policymaker) (e.g., Chatterji et al., 2018) level that influence policymakers’ higher education funding decisions. However, the focus on the supply-side determinants of state support for higher education has yielded an incomplete picture of the state higher education funding phenomenon by ignoring the role and processes on the demand-side provided by public institutions, such as the funding requests made by higher education officials to state legislative bodies.

The current study takes a distinct approach to examining state funding for public higher education by considering legislative budget requests made by public higher education officials during state legislative hearings. It is important to understand these requests, which represent the demand side of state higher education funding, since they reveal the stories higher education officials present about their institutions and why they deserve state funding. These stories illuminate what institutional leaders prioritize and how they aim to align the framing of their requests with the priorities of state policymakers (e.g., the roles their institution plays in filling workforce needs, promoting social mobility, or cultivating scientific discovery). The analysis of these requests also yields insights about tactics of persuasion used by higher education representatives, which could be instructive for public postsecondary advocates.

This study takes place within the unique context of the economic downturn induced by the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the “racial reckoning” following police murders of Black people. Funding for higher education is particularly constrained during economic recessions (Delaney & Doyle, 2011; Hovey, 1999; SHEEO, 2022), which presents additional pressures on public higher education budgets. For example, higher education institutions suffered revenue losses due to decreased enrollments and consumption of campus services, while shouldering additional expenses from reimbursements of tuition and room/board fees, technology purchases, and expenses related to COVID-19 safety, including personal protective equipment and air filters (Turk et al., 2020). Therefore, higher education representatives within this setting may present greater financial needs and face larger hurdles in justifying their requests.

This analysis also takes place in a period of social unrest following police murders of numerous Black people, including Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and Daunte Wright. These murders catalyzed broader societal awareness of racial injustice in the U.S. The pandemic also underscored how racially minoritized groups in the U.S. tend to shoulder disproportionate burdens, as they faced the highest rates of unemployment and severe illness and death resulting from COVID-19. This context is important as prospective and current college students who are racially minoritized were grappling with greater challenges to college enrollment and success than their peers. We examine the extent to which institutional leaders recognize this context in their budget requests.

This study addresses the following research question: How do public higher education leaders frame budget requests during the COVID-19 pandemic? Using the narrative policy framework (Jones et al., 2014) and a multiple case-study design (Yin, 2017), we examine narratives crafted and articulated by higher education officials in California and Texas during 38 state legislative budget meetings occurring between November 2020 and July 2021. In our analysis, we consider budget requests related to appropriations (direct funding to institutions for operations) and other types of state funding for higher education (e.g., financial aid, research funds, capital funds, and special items). This study is the first to our knowledge to examine the rationales and stories public higher education officials present to justify their budget requests, offering a unique extension to the understanding of state higher education finance. We also examine the extent to which higher education officials discursively tie their requests to the social, political, and economic state context, including that related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that the narrative policy framework is underutilized in higher education research, our study serves a second purpose to advance the use of this theory in the field to study how policy problems are defined as well as the role that story-telling plays in constructing meaning and advancing the policy solutions of the speaker.

Overview of the State Budget Cycle

To provide additional insights into the potential influence of higher education policy narratives in state financial decision-making, we provide a brief overview of state budget cycles. In a review of budget processes across the U.S., the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO, 2021) highlights the main actors involved (e.g., state governor, state legislature, and state budget agency) and the key stages throughout a typical fiscal cycle (e.g., budget guidelines are sent to state agencies, state agencies submit requests to the governor, agency requests are reviewed by the budget office, governor finalizes budget recommendations then submits the budget to the legislature, the legislature holds agency hearings, and the legislature ultimately adopts the budget). The underlying aim of budgetary requests by state agencies is to ensure the allocation of adequate state funding into a specific functional area, such as higher education, to cover operating costs, while also ideally providing additional monies to cover any unexpected expenses (NASBO, 2021; Parmley et al., 2009). Other budgetary requests may draw from the capital budget, which includes funds for the acquisition or construction of major one-time expenditures, such as land, buildings, or equipment, which can be appropriated via earmarked revenues or bond sales (NASBO, 2021).

One important difference between states is the time frame of the state budget. Thirty states, including California, operate under an annual budget cycle, where state policymakers draft a new budget each fiscal year. In contrast, twenty states, including Texas, operate on a biennial budget cycle, where each budget outlines spending recommendations for two fiscal years (NASBO, 2021; Parmley et al., 2009). Although the functional process is similar, the extended influence of biennial budgets can necessitate greater foresight and planning by the involved parties. Notably, however, among states that operate a biennial budget, there are often opportunities for adjustments annually in case of sudden shifts in the economy or other budget needs (Parmley et al., 2009).

Conceptual Framework

We ground our study using the narrative policy framework (NPF), which focuses on the form and content of influential policy narratives which are increasingly utilized in the policy-making process (Jones & McBeth, 2010; Jones & Radaelli, 2015; Jones & Song, 2014). Previous research frames these narratives as “persuasive stories for some political end” (Shanahan et al., 2011, p. 539). The main assumptions of the NPF are: (1) social construction - people or groups assign meanings to objects or processes in policymaking, (2) bounded relativity - social constructions create different policy spaces, but they are bounded and maintain some stability over time; (3) generalizable structural elements - narratives contain the same structural characteristics that can be applied to different policy areas; (4) simultaneous operation at three levels – narratives operate at the micro level (individual), meso level (group and coalitions), and macro level (cultural and institutional) at the same time; and (5) homo narrans model of the individual – narratives are compelling because “people prefer to think and speak in story form” (Shanahan et al., 2018a, p. 333) and narratives allow individuals to make sense of and process the information that they receive (McBeth et al., 2014; Shanahan et al., 2018a). For our study, we examine the budget request narratives at the meso level – specifically focusing on the higher education sectors and systems within California and Texas.

The NPF is structured by four core elements: setting, characters, plot, and moral of the story (Jones & McBeth, 2010; Jones et al., 2014; Shanahan et al., 2018b). The setting includes the context, economic circumstances, geography, norms, laws, and basic assumptions of the policy problem (Jones & McBeth, 2010; Ney, 2006; Shanahan et al., 2018b). The characters are the people within the story who may be framed as villains who cause harm, victims who experience harm, and heroes who reduce or divert harm by solving the policy problem (Ney, 2006; Stone, 2012; Verweij et al., 2006). The plot, which is typically framed with a beginning, middle, and end, provides the main action of the story as the characters interact with the events, setting, and each other (Abell, 2004; Roe, 1994; Stone, 2012). The moral of the story manifests as the policy solution or a call to action (Jones et al., 2014; Stone, 2012; Verweij et al., 2006) and often gives “purpose to the characters’ actions and motives” (Shanahan et al., 2018b, p. 176). These four elements distinguish the narrative structure from other forms of communication such as messages, lists, memes, etc. (Jones et al., 2014) and provide a framework that we can use to compare themes that emerge during the budget request meetings in each state.

Along with the four structural elements, NPF focuses on the content in terms of policy beliefs and narrative strategies. Policy beliefs can be grounded in political ideology (Lakoff, 2002), political identity (Bernstein & Taylor, 2013), or cultural theory (Thompson et al., 1990). These belief systems can attach meaning to narrative objects that can vary by who is interpreting the narrative. For example, these narrative objects can be represented by symbols (e.g., Black Lives Matter flag, thin blue line flag, Pride flag, confederate flag, etc.); public figures (Governor Gavin Newsom, President Joe Biden, Senator Ted Cruz); or groups of people (undocumented students, students with financial need, racially minoritized students, etc.) (Jones & Radaelli, 2015). The speaker can use these narrative objects to hold the attention of the audience and to influence public opinion by evoking emotional responses (Shanahan et al., 2011).

There are three typical narrative strategies highlighted by NPF used to influence the policy process: scope of conflict, causal mechanisms, and the devil-angel shift (Shanahan et al., 2018b). Depending on whether narrators and their coalitions expect to win, they may use different strategies. Winning narrators try to restrict the policy issue to the status quo to diffuse benefits and concentrate costs whereas losing narrators do the opposite; they try to expand the scope of conflict to diffuse costs and concentrate benefits (McBeth et al., 2007; Shanahan et al., 2011). Narrators also use causal mechanisms to assign the cause for the policy problem and include these mechanisms strategically to convince the audience of who or what is responsible for the current situation (Shanahan et al., 2014; Stone, 2012). The last strategy employed is the devil-angel shift from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier et al., 1987). The devil shift tries to transfer the blame on to the opponents by labeling them as villains and overemphasizing their power, influence, and dishonest motives while deemphasizing the role or power of the narrator or their coalition (Shanahan et al., 2013; Weible et al., 2009). The angel shift, on the other hand, tries to shift the credit on to the narrator and their coalition by overemphasizing their ability to solve or resolve the policy problem (i.e., identifying themselves as the heroes) while also deemphasizing the villains in the narrative (Shanahan et al., 2013).

We use the NPF to examine the narratives that postsecondary officials use to justify their budget requests to the legislature. We identify the four core elements (the setting, characters, plot, and moral of the story) for each state to show how higher education officials are describing their circumstances amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyze how they employ symbolic objects within their narratives that align with the salient values, beliefs, and attitudes of the dominant political party within the state (Democrats for California and Republicans for Texas) to influence legislators. We also examine how higher education officials use narrative strategies, particularly the causal mechanisms and devil-angel shift, to convince legislators that their budget requests are reasonable, valid, and warranted.

Higher Education Narratives in the U.S.

Given our interest in how higher education leaders portray the institutions or systems they represent to policymakers, we focus our review on studies that fall in two general categories: (1) research that examines how college and university officials depict their respective institutions to stakeholders, including through mission and vision statements (e.g., Ayers, 2005, 2015, 2017) and public-facing statements signed by institutional leaders (e.g., Cole & Harper, 2017; Squire et al., 2019); and (2) scholarship on higher education narratives within policymaking contexts (e.g., Bastedo, 2009; Hensley et al., 2013; Orphan et al., 2020). Our review suggests that dominant narratives about higher education, both those promoted by institutional leaders and those advanced by policymakers primarily emphasize the economic (transactional) functions of higher education. A related finding in this literature is the presumption of a business model for higher education. Specific to policymaker narratives, prior literature highlights their calls for greater accountability for public higher education. Specific to narratives advanced by institutional leaders, prior literature suggests they generally avoid language that explicitly addresses racism, especially systemic racism. Finally, we include a section of distinct narratives that developed around the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically related to higher education.

Economic Functions of Higher Education

Analyses of political discourse on higher education show that policymakers primarily view higher education as an avenue to produce human capital, emphasizing the economic functions of higher education, both for individuals and society (Gándara & Ness, 2019; Orphan et al., 2020; Palmadessa, 2017). For instance, Orphan and colleagues found that in state-of-the-state addresses, most governors mentioned workforce needs and prioritized programs and fields of study that would help address those gaps, including STEM fields and vocational and technical education programs. Likewise, Gándara & Ness (2019) found in their analysis of state-level political-ideological think tanks that both conservative and progressive groups emphasized the economic value of higher education in their arguments for why college affordability is a problem. At the national level, Palmadessa (2017) examined rhetoric around America’s College Promise and found that the primary stated aims of the policy were to promote social mobility (for individuals) and to bolster the national economy.

Researchers examining policy discourses about higher education point out that dominant discourses tend to disregard the role of higher education in promoting democracy (e.g., preparation for and socialization toward informed civic engagement); in solving social problems; in building and promoting community; and in facilitating the liberation of historically oppressed groups (Bylsma, 2015; Orphan et al., 2020; Stein & de Oliveira Andreotti, 2017; Suspitsyna, 2012). Suspitsyna (2012) concludes after an analysis of Department of Education speeches that “the official discourse obscures the ways in which higher education can assume a social and moral stance for the public good and prepare students for non-monetary aspects of citizenship” (p. 64).

Consistent with perspectives advanced by policymakers, higher education officials also tend to emphasize the economic role of higher education in their portrayals of the institutions they represent. In an analysis of mission statements for 144 community colleges, Ayers (2005) documents the salience of neoliberal ideology in such statements. Specifically, the author observes that discourses in mission statements position the student as an economic entity and reduce education to a market function. In doing so, these statements privilege the role of private sector partners in advancing the mission of the institution (e.g., in curriculum design). Iverson (2008) critically examined diversity policies at 20 land-grant universities and found that the “diverse individual” is shaped as a “commodity” (p. 5).

Finally, one study analyzed discourses about higher education in the State of Arizona advanced by both higher education leaders and policymakers (Hensley et al., 2013). Specifically, the authors analyzed public lectures on contemporary higher education delivered by policymakers and higher education leaders in that state. The authors found that speakers overwhelmingly spoke of the economic purposes of higher education, primarily private benefits (for social mobility) and public benefits (aligning education with industry). Similar to trends in public education, which is increasingly viewed as constituting a private good (i.e., social mobility for individuals; Labaree, 1997), higher education is widely viewed as serving to improve individuals’ social positions (Hensley et al., 2013).

Related to the previous narratives, research shows that widespread higher education narratives presume a “business model” in higher education, which highlights free markets, individual choice, and consumption (Suspitsyna, 2012). This narrative is both present within policy contexts (Suspitsyna, 2012) and perpetuated by higher education institutional representatives (Iverson, 2008; Saunders, 2014; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2009). For instance, Iverson (2008) uncovers a “marketplace discourse” within diversity plans at land-grant universities that is “characterized by fierce competition and rapidly changing market conditions and the need for multicultural competence in the global marketplace” (p. 5).

Accountability in Higher Education

Research examining narratives around higher education has also illuminated policymakers’ calls for greater accountability, especially within public higher education. Many of these studies focus on the topic of performance-based funding (PBF) for higher education (Dougherty & Natow, 2015; Gándara et al., 2017; Gándara & Daenekindt, 2022). Prior studies have shown that a primary motivator for proposing and adopting PBF policies for higher education has been the presumption that public colleges and universities are not doing enough (with state funds) to ensure student success (Dougherty & Natow, 2015; Gándara, 2020; Gándara et al., 2017; Gándara & Daenekindt, 2022). Outside of the PBF context, Suspitsyna (2012) finds that rhetoric on higher education within U.S. Department of Education speeches also highlight the need for accountability.

The calls for accountability in the studies described above can be traced to policymakers. Yet, other research has identified discourses of managerialism, including accountability, among higher education officials (e.g., Bastedo, 2009). For instance, in their review of diversity statements, Iverson (2008) found emphases on “effectiveness, accountability, monitoring of costs and effects, and quality assurance” (p. 5).

Race Evasiveness

Research on higher education narratives has noted that higher education leaders and policymakers avoid discussing race and racism. Harper (2012) highlights how higher education narratives explain away racial inequities by appealing to “anything but racism,” a reference to Bonilla-Silva and Baiocchi (2001). Other studies have likewise highlighted the pervasiveness of race-evasive discourse in higher education. Davis and Harris (2016), for example, note that racial incidents on college campuses tend to go unaddressed in public venues until leaders are faced with pressure from campus constituents, especially students (e.g., in the form of campus protests).

To the extent racism is mentioned in higher education narratives, discourse is often limited to addressing interpersonal racism rather than systemic racism. For instance, Cole and Harper (2017) found that in addressing racial incidents, college presidents mentioned the person or group who committed the racist act; they failed to transcend beyond denouncing the individuals or their actions and acknowledge the history and broader structures that produce racism. Similarly, Davis and Harris (2016) note that in addressing racial incidents, written responses from campus spokespersons limit their remarks to the single (isolated) incident, rather than acknowledging that each of these incidents is but another manifestation of endemic racism. More recently, Hypolite and Stewart (2021) found that after Donald Trump was elected, official statements from higher education institutions emphasized unity, appealed to the institution’s mission (including a mythic past), and highlighted diversity. The authors argued that these discourses portray institutions as race evasive.

Higher education researchers have also observed race-evasiveness in policy contexts. Harper and colleagues (2009) employed critical race theory to examine the history of higher education policies in the U.S. They found vestiges of racial progress in such policy, followed by “regression” fueled by White backlash; in other words, they observe that throughout history, we have witnessed the retrenchment of policy efforts to advance racial equity (e.g., affirmative action). Race-evasive policy stances, such as the movement to eliminate affirmative action, ignore the fact that a racist history and its present manifestations (e.g., pathologizing Black families) have produced inequities; such stances foreclose opportunities for advancing racial justice (Chang, 2002). As additional evidence of race-evasiveness in higher education policy, Chase and colleagues (2014) found that transfer policy documents in seven states largely ignore race. Furthermore, Felix and Trinidad (2020) found that an educational policy that started off being race-explicit (i.e., California’s Student Equity Policy) was weakened over time, leading to the desertion of efforts to directly address racial inequities in the state’s education system.

COVID-19 Pandemic

In reviewing research on higher education narratives, several recent studies examined or discussed state and institutional narratives surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and its connections to higher education. Although this body of literature is still emerging and smaller in size than the previous themes discussed, we believed this was a critical addition given the topic of our study. For example, Natow (2023) examined 40 published op-eds authored or coauthored by college presidents during the early stages of the pandemic. They highlighted that these leaders tended to emphasize the strong connections between their institution and the community, including their role in providing support during a health emergency, as well as indirect requests for assistance and resources. Other research notes policymakers needed to determine how best to prioritize state support for higher education (Gándara et al., 2023; Rubin et al., 2023). Gándara and her colleagues found that state policymakers preferred to fund students (over institutions) because students were seen as more deserving of support and state policymakers would get more political credit from supporting them compared to faceless institutions.

Methods

Building on this research on higher education narratives, we employed a multiple case-study design (Yin, 2017) to examine how public higher education leaders framed budget requests at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This research design allows for in-depth examination of a phenomenon and is appropriate for answering “how” and “why” questions (Yin, 2017). For the current study, we seek to understand how higher education officials discussed and justified their budget requests to state legislators at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic by considering two states: California and Texas. As a multiple case-study, we consider findings from the two cases together to form a more complete understanding of the underlying phenomenon.

Case selection followed purposive sampling (Yin, 2017). We sought variation in the political ideology of the state government, given research noting the influence of political partisanship in perceptions of the value and goal of higher education as well as the amount of state funding appropriated to the sector (Doyle, 2010; Li, 2017; McLendon et al., 2009, 2014; Ness & Tandberg, 2013). More recent examinations have also suggested increased partisanship on issues concerning higher education (Ellis et al., 2020; Parker, 2019). Considering this evidence, we anticipated differences in the stories higher education leaders told that aligned with the dominant political ideology of each state.

We restricted our sample to states that sponsored different types of financial aid, including merit-based, need-based, and mixed aid programs given our interest in how leaders frame different types of recipients of state higher education funding. Bell (2020, 2021) notes that perceptions about the deservingness of students to receive support varies between students with financial need versus those with high levels of academic achievement, which may also influence discussions by higher education officials with state legislators. In considering these two criteria, California and Texas emerged as the sample for this study based on their similar state financial aid portfolios—maintaining a mix of need and merit eligibility factors—and contrasting dominant political ideologies in their respective state governments, with California maintaining a unified Democrat government and Texas maintaining a unified Republican government. These states also represent two of the largest postsecondary sectors in number of students enrolled and serve racially and ethnically diverse student populations. As previously noted, one important difference between the two states is that California establishes a new budget annually while Texas operates on a biennial cycle. Consequently, the time period for the current study includes fiscal year (FY) 2021-22 in California and FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 in Texas.

Data for this study included audio recordings of budget meetings in the two states of interest. Specifically, after the budget is introduced at the beginning of the legislative session, the budget committee in each chamber of the state legislature reviews the bill and holds hearings on the different areas in the state budget. In California, the budget committees are the Assembly Budget Committee and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee; in Texas, the budget committees are the House Appropriations Committee and Senate Finance Committee. Table 1 provides details on the meetings reviewed.

Table 1 Budget Meetings in Texas and California
Full size table

In total, the research team reviewed 38 total budget meetings with 24 from the California legislature (12 Senate, 11 Assembly, and 1 Joint Assembly/Assembly Higher Education Committee) and 14 from the Texas legislature (3 Senate, 10 House, and 1 Joint Senate/House). These meetings totaled 130.98 h (California represented 77.37 h of this total, while Texas encompassed 53.61 h), with a range of 0.23 to 9.95 h. Approximately 59% (77.10 h) of the budget meetings included higher education officials presenting their budgets and responding to questions from the legislators. This varied between states with California higher education officials interacting with legislators about 55% (42.24 h) of the budget meetings and Texas higher education officials interacting with legislators about 65% (34.86 h) of the budget meetings. The budget meetings reviewed averaged 3.45 h overall, with California (3.22) and Texas (3.83) maintaining similar averages. The audio recordings of these meetings were transcribed, and each speaker was identified by their role and name. We also reviewed 62 documents associated with the transcribed meetings, including meeting agendas, hearing notices, meeting minutes, witness lists, and handouts. These archival materials served as a secondary source of data, but, for purposes of this study, were considered primarily for verification purposes of the meeting recordings.

Data analysis was completed using the Dedoose software and we developed an a priori coding structure following a review of relevant literature and key tenets of the NPF, such as setting, characters, plot, and moral of the story. The research team also identified emergent themes from the data that were not included in the original coding structure to track other common ideas between cases (Saldaña, 2016), such as perceptions of different types of higher education funding, which have potential bearing on the underlying research question of the study. Finally, the research team took several steps to maximize validity and reliability. We initially utilized Dedoose’s built-in training center to gauge the four-member research team’s inter-rater reliability and continued to review multiple excerpts from select transcripts until all members received a score above 0.60. Subsequently, at least two team members reviewed the same report during early stages of data analysis to further improve inter-coder reliability (Yin, 2017). Research team members also recoded previously analyzed transcripts as the coding structure was expanded and finalized. The research team held regular meetings to facilitate investigator triangulation and discuss any questions to enhance internal validity.

Limitations

There are several limitations of our study. First, the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on U.S. higher education were unique because the virus affected the nation within several weeks and spurred the threat of an economic downturn as cities and/or states shut down to contain it. The federal government responded by passing a series of stimulus funds, via the CARES Act, which required state leaders to make difficult decisions on how best to allocate funds to higher education as conditions within their state were rapidly changing (McMorris & Knight, 2022; Rubin et al., 2023). Accordingly, some of the trends that usually occurred to the higher education sector during economic downturns, such as increases to enrollment and tuition, did not happen as states were able to introduce funds to offset negative impacts (Gándara et al., 2023). In the meantime, higher education experienced large drops in enrollment, instead of increases traditionally expected during economic downturns (Long, 2014), which meant previously utilized mechanisms to compensate for lost state financial support, such as increasing tuition, could not balance institutional budgets (Turk et al., 2020). Thus, it is unclear whether the themes in the narratives discussed in this study are transferable to later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic or to other economic recessions.

Since our study used publicly recorded budget meetings and corresponding documents introduced during those meetings, we do not know whether higher education officials were deliberately coordinating across sectors (California and Texas) or systems (Texas) on their budget requests. Instead, we note when requests were similar and suggest that future researchers should interview higher education officials to determine whether they coordinate with each other on their budget priorities.

Findings

The budget request meetings were structured similarly within our two states. In California, only sector-level higher education officials presented and answered questions during the budget meetings. However, in one joint session of two Assembly committees, selected representatives from four individual campuses also presented to provide their on-the-ground responses to the pandemic. In Texas, individual campus and system-level higher education officials presented and answered questions. The exceptions to this rule were the Texas community colleges and technical colleges. The technical colleges were represented by a system-level official and the community colleges were represented by selected institutional officials, who were also executive committee members of the Texas Association of Community Colleges.

In each state, the government budget agencies gave high-level overviews of the proposals, explained the major budget categories, and answered questions from legislators. Then, higher education officials presented their budget requests and answered questions from the legislators. In California, each sector discussed their base funding, student support/basic needs, workforce development (California Community Colleges (CCC) only), deferred maintenance/capital outlay (University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) only), and financial aid. In Texas, system-level officials discussed the overall budget priorities of the system, highlighting specific campus requests followed by presentations from each individual campus within the system. The four universities that were not affiliated with a system presented independently. The common budget priorities across institutions included formula and non-formula funding, capital needs, research funding, student support services, financial aid, and academic programs.

Based on the legislative meetings and documents, we identified several common themes across the budget meetings. Given that our primary research question is aimed at understanding how these justifications are framed, we discuss the findings from the multiple case-study through their alignment with the four structural elements of NPF: setting, characters, plot, and moral of the story. We discuss these findings further in the discussion regarding alignment with the narratives identified in our literature review: economic functions of higher education, accountability in higher education, and race evasiveness.

Setting: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Racial Violence

In the introduction of their budget requests, most higher education leaders acknowledged the unprecedented situation that the higher education sector is facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They discussed the rapid shift to online and hybrid modalities and the challenges they experienced with this sudden change. In a joint session of two Assembly committees, Dr. Byron Clift Breland, Chancellor of the San Jose Evergreen Community College District (SJECCD), explained how the COVID-19 pandemic increased their spending on technology infrastructure (e.g., laptops, hotspots, video cameras, etc.) to ensure that their students can access their courses. They remarked that SJECCD’s spending on technology infrastructure was “significant,” and this sentiment was echoed by several higher education leaders in both states who voiced concern that they had limited financial resources to continue to respond to the ever-changing and unpredictable nature of the pandemic.

In addition to spending on technology infrastructure, postsecondary institutions needed to buy health-related products and/or services such as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), COVID-19 tests and vaccines, and train staff to implement contact tracing when there were exposures on campus. Some institutional leaders – particularly from regional comprehensive universities and community colleges – remarked that they had not been funded or sufficiently funded for contact tracing or COVID-19 testing for their students, faculty, and staff. They asked for “one-time dollars” to pay for these expenses. In contrast, health-related institutions in Texas and the University of California (UC) Academic Health Centers described how they were able to offer critical COVID-19 services to their campuses and wider communities to mitigate the spread of the virus, such as providing contact tracing, manufacturing and distributing the vaccine, and educating the public on these issues.

Along with the pandemic, California officials in the three sectors (UC, CSU, and CCC) mentioned the murder of George Floyd, the racial unrest, and how these events increased their focus on dismantling systemic racism by renewing their commitment to closing and eliminating racial equity gaps across the state. Mr. Eloy Ortiz Oakley, Chancellor of the CCC, explained in an Assembly Budget Subcommittee Meeting:

In addition to the response to a once in a lifetime pandemic, there was also a long overdue reckoning with racism that shook our country to the core and it continues to ripple throughout society. It would have been easy for us to use this pandemic as an excuse to pull back on our commitment to ending racial disparities in our colleges, but that misunderstands the nature of this crisis. The events of the past year have made visible disparities that our Black, African American, Latinx, Asian American, and Pacific Islander communities have encountered for generations. And, you know, these events only deepened awareness and crystallized our commitment to students and the investments that we need to make in order to right these wrongs.

Chancellor Oakley urged state legislators to provide the support that the system needed to close the equity gaps in all community college districts and that “closing equity gaps means making very difficult choices, very courageous choices about how we use the resources that we have.”

In Texas, most higher education officials avoided mentions of racial violence or racism entirely during their budget request hearings. There were only a couple of exchanges between higher education leaders and state legislators when higher education leaders were asked about specific racial incidents on campus. The President of The University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin), Dr. Jay Hartzell, was asked about Black college athletes’ reactions to the singing of The Eyes of Texas during sporting events. The President of Texas Tech University, Dr. Lawrence Schovanec, was asked about how universities handled First Amendment rights on campus “when you have tense issues concerning White supremacists.” In both situations, the Presidents of UT Austin and Texas Tech University explained how they reached out to the targeted groups on campus, usually Black students, to speak with them and discuss how the university planned to respond.

During this same legislative session, there were several anti-Critical Race Theory (CRT) bills introduced that proscribed how race, racism, and current events should be taught in K-12 public schools (McGee, 2021). This legislative activity and discourse may have further cooled the Texas legislative climate on discussions about race and racism and induced higher education officials to ignore these recent events instead of discussing how the racial violence or racism was affecting their campuses.

Characters

Higher education leaders discussed various actors during their budget requests and, in alignment with the NPF, these actors can be categorized as either heroes, victims, or villains. Most postsecondary officials framed state legislators and themselves as heroes during their testimonies. Notably, instead of identifying a particular set of actors as villains, higher education administrators described the villainous actions that contributed to the current state of affairs on their campuses. Almost universally, students were discussed as victims within the budget requests.

Legislators and Public Higher Education Leaders as Heroes

In both states, higher education officials often described positive state or institutional outcomes resulting from actions of legislators and other government officials, framing them as heroes for the higher education sector. In a Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee meeting, Seija Virtanen, Associate Director of State Budget Relations for the UC, began their testimony about the status of the system by first stating, “We’re grateful for the agreement between legislative leadership and the governor to fully restore the university base budget reduction starting July 1. Receiving these funds back is critical for avoiding steep reductions to campus services.” They continued later in a response to a legislator by noting, the “University of California is very appreciative of the governor’s proposed funding for student mental health and technology access as well as the one-time financial aid.” Officials in the CSU and CCC sectors made similar gestures, acknowledging components of the budget that will impact their own operation and, in turn, offering appreciation to the state officials involved in its passing.

In Texas, there was a similar representation of legislators as heroes in the budget process. Dr. Guy Bailey, President of The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV), for example, offered an extensive overview of UTRGV’s accomplishments around growth in student enrollment, persistence, and completion, while also highlighting the performance of Pell Grant recipients and first-generation college students, but ultimately attributed these successes to the legislature. Specifically, Dr. Bailey explained, “the Texas Grants [state financial aid program] are one of the reasons we were able to graduate students with low debt, so thank you for what you’ve done there.” Similarly, in their comments, Dr. Heather Wilson, President of The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), mentioned they were “very thankful that the legislature chose in 2016 to establish the School of Pharmacy in one of the most underserved regions of the state.” They continued by connecting the establishment of the legislature’s involvement in establishing the School five years prior to, ultimately, noting how the institution is helping support the region during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition to framing state legislators as heroes, higher education officials emphasized their exceptional ability to manage during the uncertainty of the pandemic and the reduced fiscal resources given the prior budget cuts.Footnote 2 They praised their faculty, staff, and students for their resiliency, perseverance, and flexibility while discussing how they, as their institutions’ leaders, either maintained or improved accountability measures such as enrollment, retention, degree completion, or job placement rates. Dr. Kelly Miller, President/CEO of Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi (TAMUCC) explained during a Texas Senate Finance Committee hearing:

As an island university, we are very prepared - extensively prepared for hurricanes. And so when the pandemic hit, we were able to almost seamlessly move fully online last spring. And we’re very proud of the fact that 99% of our students at the time of the pandemic stayed with us through that spring semester - successfully completing the semester. In fact, in the midst of this pandemic, we saw an 11% increase in our graduation rate, with 43, excuse me, 45% of those degrees going to Hispanic students, 51%, to minorities, 59% to first generation [students] and 70% to at-risk students - all now part of the educated workforce.

Nathan Evans, Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor for Academic and Student Affairs for CSU, had similar sentiments about the positive and improved outcomes of their students:

Despite the pandemic this past May, nearly 110,000 CSU students earned a bachelor’s degree and join the ranks of our 23.8 million alumni. That was a record number of degrees − 23,000 additional graduates compared to 2015, the year before our graduation initiative launched. And while collectively universities across the country have seen undergraduate enrollment drop by approximately 4% in the last year, our enrollment is at a record high. This academic year, we are proudly educating the largest student body in the CSU history. In Fall 2020 that stood at nearly 486,000 students. And perhaps most notably, during the COVID-19 pandemic, we recorded our highest retention rate ever, with more than 85% of our first-year students returning to campus in Fall 2020 for their second year.

These excerpts illustrate how higher education leaders were framing themselves as heroes because they were able to manage their institutions successfully during the pandemic as their accountability measures actually improved.

Villainous Actions not Actors

In comparison to the framing of state legislators and themselves as heroes, higher education officials identified villainous actions instead of villainous actors during their budget requests. As mentioned previously, COVID-19 often served as the default villainous action that negatively impacted higher education and its members. Dr. Breland, Chancellor of SJECCD, also emphasized “the disproportionate infection and death rates have and continue to impact low-income Latino, African American, and Asian Pacific Islander communities” to further emphasize the pressing needs of their community college and the students that they serve.

However, COVID-19 was rarely discussed as the sole “villain” in these conversations. Most higher education leaders explained how previous budget cuts were villainous actions, because they required leaders to make difficult choices, enact prudent fiscal management, and use their institutional reserves (if available) to balance their budgets. For instance, Dr. Antonio D. Tillis, who served as the Interim President of the University of Houston-Downtown, noted the approximately $103,000 budget cut per year “will have an impact in real terms,” which they equated “to the salary and benefits to academic advisors or to financial aid counselors.” To this end, many higher education officials urged their state legislators to restore their funding because their institutions would not be able to maintain the same level of educational quality if they received more budget cuts this cycle.

Higher education officials at regional comprehensive or open-enrollment institutions identified the current funding formulas as villainous due to funding inequities across public higher education institutions with their institutions receiving lower funding per student compared to their counterparts within the state. Dr. Brian McCall, Chancellor of the Texas State University System (TSUS), described how their system is “funded at the bottom of the 37–38 public institutions of higher learning in Texas” and provided additional details by explaining how “Texas State University is funded 25 million less than its peer group, Lamar [University] is funded 17 million for the biennium less than its peer group, and Sam Houston [State University] is funded 32 million less than its peer group.” The consequence of this inequitable funding for universities within the system is that TSUS schools have to do “more with less” and instead Dr. McCall argued that TSUS wants to do “more with more” because TSUS has “better results than any university system in America.”

In California, David O’Brien, Vice Chancellor for Government Relations at CCC, brought up the inequities in financial aid funding for CCC students compared to CSU and UC students. They explained that due to the eligibility requirements of the Cal Grant program [state financial aid program], adult learners are not guaranteed Cal Grant funding from the state. Instead, students are entered into a competitive lottery system that does not have enough available awards for the number of adult learners who need them. Consequently, “the overall levels of funding in state aid for community college students” is “wildly inequitable” with “$14 in Cal Grants going to all other segments combined [CSU and UC] for every $1 that goes to community college students.”

These two examples highlight how the inequities in state appropriations or financial aid funding place regional comprehensive universities and community colleges at a disadvantage compared to other sectors within their states. This makes it difficult for these types of institutions and students to manage the devasting effects of the pandemic because they do not have access to as many financial resources as their counterparts. This means that they need to make difficult decisions such as reducing services, cutting programs, or if they are students, dropping out of school, when their financial resources are insufficient to cover the increased costs.

Students as Victims

The last group of characters described by NPF are victims, who tend to be the actors in need of support from the heroes and saved from the villains (or in this case, villainous actions). Overall, speakers in both states framed their budget requests and financial narratives around how best to support students, and often suggested that without proper funding the legislators are negatively impacting the individuals whom higher education is trying best to serve. For example, Dr. Lizette Navarette, Vice Chancellor of College Finance and Facilities Planning for the CCC, underscored CCC’s student-first mentality in their overview of the system and goals in a joint session of two Assembly meetings. Dr. Navarette explained how CCC were flexible and extended grace to students by “giving them the benefit of the doubt on any major issues.” They discussed the financial and technological resources available to students and made sure that “struggling students were not placed on academic probation.”

After discussing what CCC had done to support students during the pandemic, Dr. Navarette continued by outlining what still needed to be done:

Our students are facing many of the economic and social challenges that are now ubiquitous across higher education, uncertainty and employment, daycare, uncertainty shifting work schedules and unanticipated expenses. Many of these disparate impacts are not new for our students, but they’ve been heightened by COVID-19 but are still part of the instability that our students have to - have had to overcome all the time. And the signposts are clear. Our students desperately need financial aid access… Students are taking fewer courses, and students with dependent children are facing greater challenges. We’ve seen similar data in a very comprehensive census survey that indicated that low income and older students were more likely to pause their educational plans for fall because they had interruptions in their income. By supporting community colleges, we believe that we can heed these trends.

Dr. Navarette’s testimony underscores how decisions made by legislators directly impact students and provides background that may influence individuals in offering greater support to CCC and higher education generally.

In Texas, a similar framing emerged regarding students. Kenneth Huewitt, who at the time served as the Interim President for Texas Southern University, a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), was questioned by a legislator regarding an alternative funding formula for higher education. Through this interaction, they highlighted a key villainous action, the 5% budget cut from the previous fiscal year, and its impact on students:

When you think about just even the 5% cut that we had to make… those were positions for us, you know, when you start talking about a 5% cut… it’s services that the students need that we’re not able to give them because of making those types of cuts… the beauty of the HBCU is that nurturing experience of those services wrapped around those students that, quite frankly… they haven’t had all that support around them… Again, it’s not a cookie cutter approach that you can do on this.

Ultimately, Mr. Huewitt’s argument offers many similarities to that of Dr. Navarette in California. Specifically, both discuss their budgetary requests as a function of supporting and helping students, rather than impacting the institution.

Plot and Moral of the Story

The underlying structure or plot for higher education budget requests tended to follow three broad topics in the following order: (1) institutional (or system-wide) profile with successes and highlights; (2) student-centered responses to how higher education responded to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (3) current and new requests. This common structure ended with the main takeaway message (or the moral of the story): to restore or increase their funding in the next fiscal year(s). In the messaging to the state legislators, higher education leaders emphasized the urgency of their requests given how the COVID-19 pandemic was still on-going and how institutional responses to the pandemic decreased their revenues and increased their costs.

Plot: Institutional Profile with Successes and Highlights

At the start of each budget request, college and university leaders described their institutions/systems and the unique value that they brought to the state. For example, President Dr. Kirk Calhoun from The University of Texas at Tyler (UT Tyler) provided an overview of his institution to the Texas House Appropriations Subcommittee on Article III, noting that, “UT Tyler is a growing institution… We are proud that we have one of the lowest tuition rates, smallest class sizes, and highest graduation rates in our region.” After describing the demographics of the incoming class, Dr. Calhoun continued by outlining their institution’s strategic initiatives: “student retention, graduation success, career progression, and having programs that engage students in compelling ways and successfully deploying the university’s resources to address workforce needs.”

When speaking about the unique value that his institution brought to Texas, Dr. Calhoun emphasized the recent alignment of UT Tyler and UT Health Science Center under “one administrative umbrella” which provided a “greater ability to serve our region though our educational health and service mission.” In the same system, Dr. Heather Wilson, President of UTEP, reported that they are now “in the top 5% research institutions in the United States” with $108 million worth of research last year. UTEP is “particularly strong in engineering, which is really the roots of the university.” Dr. Wilson also emphasized the importance of their new School of Pharmacy as educating nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists are “critical to the economy and health of the region we serve.”

These narratives align with prior literature that found policymakers and institutional leaders emphasized the economic functions of higher education (Ayers, 2005; Gándara & Ness, 2019; Hensley et al., 2013; Orphan et al., 2020; Palmadessa, 2017). By discussing their system’s or institution’s contributions to produce human capital and add to the local or regional economy, higher education officials explained their value in a manner that was important to their legislators. However, there were some differences in how sectors emphasized their contribution to the economy. In the four-year sector across both states, research institutions focused on the importance of medical, military, and/or technology research and development whereas regional comprehensive universities in both states explained how they educated professionals in the fields of agriculture, culinary arts, education, engineering, hospitality, law enforcement, healthcare, science, and technology. Two-year colleges emphasized their strong connection to the workforce by discussing how they trained essential workers for the state.

Plot: Student-Centered Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic

When higher education officials discussed the institutional responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, they emphasized how student-centered thinking guided their actions. Dr. Calhoun outlined how UT Tyler supported their students during the pandemic:

Like our colleagues, we have been very much focused on protecting the health of our students, while limiting disruptions due to the pandemic… We have assisted students by providing financial aid, meeting technology needs, providing COVID testing, establishing social distancing, and, very importantly, adhering to the students’ mental health needs during these times of stress.

Similar to Dr. Calhoun’s discussion around limiting disruptions at UT Tyler, Nathan Brostrom, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at UC, underscored that “COVID-19 created unique challenges for the university” but acknowledged:

significant efforts and incredible flexibility shown by the [UC] campuses… to quickly transition from residential in-person instruction to remote learning… [while] maintaining the focus on how to best deliver courses to ensure students continue to receive a high quality education in spite of the pandemic.

Given that students and their families were struggling during the pandemic, higher education leaders in both states emphasized students’ needs and challenges to justify to the legislature that more funding was warranted. This would allow administrators to spend more money on their students to address the ever growing and changing needs in the hopes of slowing the rate of student departure. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic affected low-income and racially minoritized communities more severely, higher education officials emphasized that postsecondary education needs to remain accessible and affordable for all students. They also discussed how equity gaps were increasing because of the pandemic, which amplified the urgency for higher education to eliminate those gaps so that all students can succeed and earn their degree. However, the specific equity gaps that higher education leaders mentioned in each state varied and will be further discussed in a later section.

Moral of the Story: Restore and/or Increase Funding

Higher education leaders emphasized the need to restore and sometimes increase their level of funding given the effects of the pandemic on their students, faculty, staff, and broader community. Dr. Kelly Miller, President/CEO of TAMUCC, in her opening statements to the Texas House of Representatives, emphasized how, “we have been successful in so many ways, but we are lean, and even a 5% budget cut does impact our ability to serve students at a time when they need our support more than ever.” Dr. Joseph Castro, the CSU Chancellor, took this a step further and asked the state legislators for more funding. He justified this request because CSU “stand[s] ready to do more. And this historic moment in time, demands that you do more, but we need your support - your continued support.”

Higher education leaders framed their messaging for more funding based on three common reasons: (1) the essential role that higher education played in mitigating the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) the need for higher education to remain accessible and affordable for all; and (3) the urgency to eliminate equity gaps so that all students can succeed. During the discussion of their institutional (or system-wide) profile and highlights for the year, higher education leaders emphasized the first reason to restore or increase their funding. During the discussion on student-centered responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, higher education officials focused on the second and third reasons for their funding requests.

Reasoning #1: Higher Education was Essential to Mitigate the Negative Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic

During their budget requests, higher education emphasized the essential role they played during the COVID-19 pandemic by describing how they “rapidly administered vaccines and research therapies” and educated our “healthcare heroes who are working to save lives.” Higher education leaders argued that the state investment was warranted given the benefits the sector offered to their communities and to the state during this time. Dr. Michael Drake, President of the UC system, highlighted several institutional initiatives and activities. For example, UC San Francisco partnered with the City of San Francisco and City College of San Francisco to “offer 1,000 vaccinations a day and a drive thru clinic facility.” He also shared that UC Irvine turned their athletics arena into a vaccination center that served thousands of people and UC Davis provided free COVID testing to all Davis residents, trained students to do contact tracing, coordinated with hotels and apartments to offer quarantine housing, and employed undergraduates to distribute free masks and “combat health misinformation.”

In Texas, Dr. Daniel Podolsky, President of UT Southwestern Medical Center, discussed how their institution was “intensely focused on ensuring the safety of our campus community, our community more broadly, and what we could do to help the state of Texas.” They mentioned that UT Southwestern Medical Center was the first to establish COVID-19 testing for the North Texas region and used their capacity “to support not only the needs of our own patients, but really virtually every other health system in the region” as well as “providing test capacity from many, many areas beyond our own region.” In addition, their physicians cared for more than 10,000 patients who were severely ill with the virus and needed hospitalizations. Their researchers quickly pivoted to study the coronavirus in a matter of weeks with the number of research projects growing from a handful to well over 300 projects.

These examples emphasize how postsecondary institutions provided vital services during the COVID-19 pandemic to mitigate the negative effects of the virus on their communities. Higher education leaders also depicted their institutions as essential in the development of COVID-19 vaccine and the treatment of severely ill patients hospitalized with the virus. Through the framing of their contributions during COVID-19 pandemic, higher education leaders sought to show legislators that the investment from them was worth it.

Reasoning #2: The Need for Higher Education to Remain Accessible and Affordable for All

During their budget requests, colleges and university officials stressed how higher education needed to remain accessible and affordable for all students considering the COVID-19 pandemic. They explained how their institution remained flexible in their enrollment and retention strategies especially in the rapid move to online and hybrid course formats. They also emphasized student success strategies such as expanding student services for mental health, basic needs, emergency aid, and other wraparound services so that students remained enrolled and on track to earn their degrees. Dr. Mark Rudin, President of Texas A&M- Commerce, and Dr. Lonnie Howard, President of Lamar Institute of Technology, reminded legislators that by completing their degrees, students will “break this cycle of generational poverty” and bring “hope to a generation of students who have never believed in the American dream.” Nathan Evans, who serves as the Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor for Academic and Student Affairs for CSU, discussed the following in their budget request hearing:

Throughout the pandemic, Chancellor Emeritus White and now Chancellor Castro have kept the university’s sights on two north stars: (1) safeguarding the health and well-being of the entire CSU community and (2) ensuring that as many students as possible stay on track to earning the proven lifelong benefits of a CSU degree.

This sentiment was echoed by other postsecondary leaders who emphasized how higher education represents a pathway to prosperity and upward mobility as well as a way for the state to recover from the economic downturn ushered in by the pandemic. Dr. Byron Clift Breland, Chancellor of SJECCD, pointed out:

the pandemic has disproportionately impacted African American and Latino community college students. Community college students, enrollment experts, and advocates from those communities have shared that these students tend to live in multi-generational households that don’t allow for social distancing. There are critical realities to be mindful of as we start to think about designing and implementing a strong and equitable post- pandemic recovery for the state’s economy.

Dr. Breland’s statement further illustrated how important it is for higher education to remain accessible to students, especially for racially minoritized students, who were the most affected by the pandemic and may have had their education disrupted because of illness, loss of employment, or other fallout from the pandemic.

In addition to accessibility, speakers highlighted how they strove to keep higher education affordable for their students. In Texas, higher education leaders discussed how they implemented tuition freezes, reductions in tuition prices, or utilized state financial aid to reduce educational expenses. Dr. Betty Reynard, President of Lamar State College Port Arthur, explained how their college decreased tuition in Fall 2020 and then distributed 80% of their CARES Act funding to their students to further reduce the price of their education. In California, postsecondary officials discussed how state financial aid such as the Cal Grant or the promise grant (formerly the Board of Governors fee waiver) covered tuition and fees for students in need. However, California higher education leaders often explained how tuition and fees were not usually barriers to higher education for their students; instead, students needed more financial support to cover basic needs such as housing, food, transportation, childcare, and healthcare.

Reasoning #3: Urgency to Eliminate Equity Gaps so that All Students Can Succeed

While officials in both states mentioned the importance of closing equity gaps in their budget requests, Californian speakers focused on equity gaps across race/ethnicity, income levels, age, and first-generation status. Nathan Evans, Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor for Academic and Student Affairs for CSU, explained:

CSU is succeeding because of our unwavering commitment to the graduation initiative, focused on three objectives: improving graduation rates for all students, eliminating equity gaps, and meeting California’s workforce needs. But… our work is unfinished. In doing our part for a California for all, we must eliminate equity gaps by race, by income, and by first-generation college attendance. With social unrest and economic upheaval that California communities have and continue to experience, there’s never been a more important area of investment.

In Texas, higher education leaders often mentioned equity gaps related to income levels, first-generation status, or left them unspecified. When race/ethnicity equity gaps were mentioned in Texas, it was brief – usually followed by the recognition that the institution was either a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI)/emerging HSI or framed as a specific story about a racially minoritized military alumnus or racially minoritized college athlete. As mentioned previously, Texan higher education officials may have been reluctant to discuss racial/ethnic equity gaps because of the chilly climate for those type of discussions, since there were several anti-CRT bills introduced during the legislative session.

The one exception was Dr. Ruth Simmons, President of Prairie View A&M University, a HBCU. She explained how successful HBCUs have been in “producing immensely productive, African Americans [who] over time, decades, have really excelled in leadership positions.” However, the lack of funding for HBCUs has consequences. Dr. Simmons explained:

I do want to remind people that the differential support over a long period of time tends to get compounded and they create disparate conditions and there’s a lot of talk right now about disparate economic, health, and other conditions for African Americans. Well, there’s a reason for that, and that is because over time, failure to address these disparities means that you fall farther and farther behind. The focus right now on wealth and income disparity is particularly salient. And we’re going to hear a lot in the future about what the nation is doing to try to address that. So we ask that you continue to help us strengthen our efforts to the benefit of important underserved communities.

Dr. Simmons finished her testimony requesting that the 5% budget reduction be reversed because they needed more funding for wrap-around services for their students. She explained how their students come with more pressing needs and “we know that they can succeed, but they cannot succeed with minimal support.”

Another Texas college president focused most of their budget request on equity, but they used race-evasive language throughout their testimony. Dr. Cynthia Teniente-Matson, the president of Texas A&M University - San Antonio (TAMUSA), introduced TAMUSA as “a proud Hispanic-Serving Institution that focuses on delivering equitable educational experiences for diverse student population.” Dr. Teniente-Matson described how the student population was 75% Hispanic, 71% first-generation, and 73% Pell Grant recipients. Given the student population of TAMUSA, they emphasized how, “It’s not enough to just enroll underrepresented students, we have to serve them well and support their educational achievements and professional outcomes to match those of their more advantaged peers.” While Dr. Teniente-Matson centered equity in their testimony, they still used race-evasive language by not specifically naming the racialized groups they were advocating for in their budget request. Instead, they framed these students as “diverse” or “underrepresented.”

Discussion

Higher education officials in California and Texas used their budget requests to illustrate as Dr. Taylor Eighmy, President of TAMUSA, stated why “higher education is an excellent investment in the future” of their states. During these requests, they advocated for the restoration of their funding from the prior fiscal year’s budget cuts and asked for more funding considering the challenges and additional expenses of the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher education leaders in both states provided several examples of the essential role that they played to mitigate the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. They also discussed the urgent needs that their students had and their desire to meet these needs to ensure that their students do not drop out of higher education during this time. Embedded in these discussions of their students’ needs was the fact that addressing these needs would require more funding so that higher education can offer additional or expanded services and supports to their students. Higher education representatives emphasized the importance of keeping postsecondary education accessible and affordable for all and closing equity gaps, so that all students can succeed and earn their degree. This student-first mentality also aligned with how state policymakers in California and Texas justified how to fund higher education during the early stages of the pandemic (Gándara et al., 2023).

In general, Texas and California higher education leaders emphasized the economic functions of higher education during their budget request meetings. They discussed how the sector provides essential research contributing to economic growth and/or trained students to fulfill critical needs in the state’s workforce. Higher education officials also emphasized the uniqueness of their school or system, and how they specifically added value to their state and local economies. They provided evidence to the state legislators that students were struggling during the pandemic and, if they dropped out of college, the students and the state would lose these positive economic benefits. Higher education leaders likely emphasized the economic functions of higher education because state policymakers often prioritize the human capital function of higher education (Gándara & Ness, 2019; Orphan et al., 2020; Palmadessa, 2017) and would be more likely to respond positively to budgets requests that emphasized the benefits to the workforce and the state economy.

Higher education officials centered their messages on justifying why their institution or system deserved more money in the upcoming fiscal year(s). They emphasized accountability measures, such as high or improving graduation, retention, and job placement rates amidst a pandemic. While doing so, these narratives highlighted what legislators were buying with their financial support and how the institutions were successfully managing this money to guide their students through graduation and into the workforce. Higher education leaders in both states were careful not to label themselves (or their institutions) as victims and instead, provided multiple examples and stories on when they were the heroes. This strategy may have reassured state policymakers that increased funding would not go to waste because higher education leaders were still able to successfully manage their institutions during these uncertain times. This focus on accountability and student success measures within the budget requests also aligned with policy narratives on the adoption of PBF (Dougherty & Natow, 2015; Gándara, 2020; Gándara et al., 2017; Gándara & Daenekindt, 2022) and emphasized how legislators need to be reassured that higher education was using their state resources wisely.

As expected from prior research on the discussion of race and racism in higher education narratives (Davis & Harris, 2016; Harper, 2012), most postsecondary leaders used race-evasive language during the budget requests. They tended to describe their students as “underrepresented,” “diverse,” and “minorities.” Higher education officials rarely discussed the racial/ethnic demographics of their student populations, but, when they did, it was to mention how their institutions were HSIs/emerging HSIs or to describe single examples of racially minoritized students on their campuses. The exceptions to this were higher education leaders at Texas HBCUs who specifically stated that their students were African-Americans and described how recent budget cuts or current funding formulas affected their African-American students. Despite higher education leaders discussing their budget requests during a period of heightened attention to racial violence, police brutality, and public protests, there was an overall lack of acknowledgement of these events and discussion of how these events affected the lives of their racially minoritized students, faculty, and staff. In fact, higher education leaders in Texas tended to ignore these events entirely except for higher education leaders at HBCUs. In California, while higher education leaders in all three sectors mentioned these events, they only discussed them briefly during their budget request meetings.

While postsecondary education leaders discussed similar themes in their narratives, they evoked different narrative objects through their examples. Higher education officials in Texas tended to use examples focused on student athletes, veterans, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), the military, or agricultural services such as ranching. Californian higher education administrators used examples focused on different groups of students, such as adult learners, students with children, displaced workers, or racially minoritized students. We interpret the differences in the narrative objects that were evoked as intentional as higher education leaders used examples that would most resonate with legislators within the state by aligning them with the norms, values, and beliefs of the state or the dominant political party.

For narrative strategies, higher education officials in both states identified the on-going pandemic and budget cuts from last fiscal year as the causal mechanisms for the current budget requests. Postsecondary leaders explained how they reduced expenses by furloughing staff, mandating hiring freezes, halting travel, suspending merit pay, reducing operating costs, and/or eliminating positions to address their budget shortfalls. Institutions relied on federal funding through the CARES Act to address their financial challenges, but some colleges and universities reported that this funding source only addressed about half of their financial need. They also discussed that financial resources were depleted and emphasized difficulty in maintaining the same quality of education without a full restoration of their budget in the upcoming fiscal years. In addition, these restored funds would ensure stability for the core operations and academic mission of their colleges and universities.

Most postsecondary leaders opted for the angel shift during their budget testimonies as this narrative strategy played up their ability as leaders to successfully manage their institutions during the budgets cuts (or deferrals) while still maintaining or improving their accountability measures (e.g., graduation, retention, enrollment, and job placement rates). They also praised faculty, staff, and students for their perseverance and resiliency during these challenging and uncertain times. Some higher education leaders, especially those in medical schools and health-related institutions, discussed how their universities were assets to their local communities by providing vaccines and testing sites during the pandemic. While the previous budget cuts and deferrals were the result of state legislators and/or the governor, higher education representatives did not label them as the villains; instead, they decided to deemphasize their role in those budgetary decisions. In addition, some postsecondary leaders thanked legislators for the funding that they received with the understanding that the budget cuts could have been worse for higher education. They also urged the legislator to go beyond restoring the budget cuts to provide additional funding for their students who are dealing with the brunt of the pandemic.

The angel shift is a safer narrative strategy than the devil shift because it emphasizes what higher education leaders can do and provides them with an opportunity to highlight their successes during the year. The devil shift may be too politically risky for higher education leaders as they would need to identify villains to transfer the blame for their current fiscal situations, and who can be characterized as wanting to weaken public higher education. Given how the state budget process works, these potential villains would most likely need to be actors within the state government, which could lead to political consequences given their influence and power within the state. Instead, higher education leaders blamed villainous actions, such as the budget cuts or the funding formulas, instead of the actors who implemented these decisions. This allows higher education officials to discuss the consequences of these actions on their budgets and financial resources without fear of political fallout.

Conclusion

By examining how higher education officials justified their budget requests to legislators in California and Texas, we found similarities in how they structured their narratives by describing a setting, characters, plot, and moral of the story within their testimonies. However, higher education leaders evoked different narrative objects based on what aligned with the norms, values, and beliefs of their state or the dominant political party within the state. They also chose to employ the angel shift as a narrative strategy as it was more politically viable as it allowed them to emphasize their successful management of their institutions during the pandemic while also deemphasizing the role that state political actors played with setting up those funding conditions or structures.

Surprisingly, California and Texas had more similarities than differences in how higher education representatives presented their budget requests, and the political ideologies of the state did not play as large of a role as originally anticipated. Given the politically partisan rhetoric surrounding higher education (Knott, 2024), this reality may hold implications for both research and policy as there may be alternate factors, beyond politics, influencing this finding. Given the complexity and size of the two states examined in this study, future researchers should examine how state contexts and characteristics affect policy narratives. We suggest examining how higher education leaders frame their budget requests in other economic conditions such as when the economy is stable or during periods of rapid growth to better understand how narratives and narrative strategies may change. Alternatively, future research should examine more states with contrasting political ideologies to confirm whether partisanship is not an important factor on how higher education leaders tell their story. To explore this further, future researchers can select states with non-unified Congresses (e.g. majority Republican Senate compared to a split House (Pennsylvania) or majority Democrat Senate compared to a split House (Michigan)) to examine whether higher education officials change their narratives when presenting the same budget requests to legislators when there is a clear political majority to when neither party has the majority. This could provide additional evidence on whether politics influence how higher education leaders frame their budget requests.

Given our second purpose to advance the use of NPF in higher education research, we offer suggestions on how postsecondary scholars can use this conceptual framework. Since the NPF focuses on story-telling and how individuals or groups make sense of their reality, we recommend examining the narratives of higher education leaders’ speeches, public remarks, and/or university-wide emails to address campus events or initiatives. These messages – often from the president – offer insight into how the university views itself, the narrative objects or symbols they evoke, and the strategies that they use to persuade their audience on their preferred policy solution. Researchers can also compare the narratives university leaders use internally to the narratives that they use externally. For example, higher education researchers can compare the narratives told by campus deans during their internal budget requests to the president and provost compared to the narratives told by university presidents during their external budget requests to the state legislators. It will allow researchers to examine how different colleges within a university construct meaning of their reality, what strategies that they use to advance their preferred policy solution, and whether they too emphasis the economic functions of higher education and accountability measures when persuading their internal audiences for funding.