01:00 AM EST on Monday, January 31, 2005

I AM THE SOCIAL-WORK STUDENT The Journal wrote about in the Nov. 14 news article "Professor, is there room on the right?," which discussed some concerns I have about receiving a biased education. I'm 41, and academia isn't what I remembered.

Don't misunderstand. There are great professors at Rhode Island College, but in the School of Social Work (SSW), even the good ones practice political indoctrination. As one faculty member put it, "The SSW is not committed to balanced presentations, nor should we be."

How does this loss of academic freedom affect Rhode Island? Besides robbing us of intellectual diversity that spawns creativity and knowledge, it does tangible damage to our economy and, more important, the poor.

One requirement of graduation is that we lobby the State House on social-justice issues. I selected the Education and Training bill, as it is the core of welfare reform, my career interest.

Welfare programs are employment- or education-focused, further defined by "strict" or "lenient" requirements. Rhode Island has a "lenient, education-focused" model, and the proposed legislation advocates greater leniency. Statistics provided by the school, backing this approach to welfare, seemed persuasive to me at first. However, I found the school's study inadequate, so I looked for more information.

The U.S. Department of Education, I discovered, carefully studied the impact of welfare programs. It found that Rhode Island's model is the least effective and most costly. Virtually all measures (earnings, job security, economic security, self-sufficiency, etc.) show "lenient, education-focused" programs underperformed compared with other models.

We all know that education enhances a person's opportunities in life. We want to believe "education-focused" programs work -- but the research shows otherwise. According to U.S. studies, even in long-range terms, "[t]his finding suggests that it is unlikely that the [education-focused] program will eventually catch up to or surpass the [employment-focused] program with longer follow-up. . . . [T]he positive effects of employment-focused programs may persist or grow larger over time." In other words, some of us need to build career skills on the job -- not in a classroom.

Research by Rhode Island College's Poverty Institute compares Rhode Island's performance with its past -- or studies self-selected groups. But is it valid?

As Dr. Mary Ann Bromley said of her own work, "One limitation of this study is the problem of selection bias, due to the use of a non-probability quota-sampling strategy, rather than random sampling." If random-sampling studies are preferred -- and are available -- why aren't we using them?

Dr. Sue Pearlmutter, of the Poverty Institute, acknowledged the benefits of other welfare programs, but said: "[N]one of the findings indicate that earnings were substantial enough to lift people out of poverty." Neither does Rhode Island's, but that's misleading; "earnings" aren't the same as "income," and benefits don't end when earnings start. Add programs such as child care and Food Stamps, and incomes reach 30 to 40 percent above the poverty line.

The U.S. research states, "[E]mployment-focused programs generally produced larger five-year gains in employment and earnings than did education-focused programs."

Rhode Island ranks third highest in per-welfare-recipient spending, seventh highest in tax rates, and among the lowest in welfare efficacy (36th in poverty rate, 43rd in caseload reduction, 49th in teen pregnancy, 41st in job entry, and 40th in earnings gain).

Wouldn't almost everyone benefit from more effective programs? More poor people would become self-sufficient, funds would become available for other needy people, and taxpayers might even get a break.

Professor James Ryzcek "teaches" that a comprehensive welfare state (devoid of work requirements) is the optimal form of government, and said, "The students need to decide whether they agree with [my opinions] and whether they belong in social work."

When I told my professor that the research suggests that I advocate for "employment-focused" programs, I was told that this was a "perspective school," and they don't teach that perspective. If I lobby on this bill, I must advocate for the perspective mandated by the school.

Let's draw a straight line: The school teaches the "perspective"; graduates get jobs at the state Department of Human Services and the Poverty Institute; the DHS testifies (using Poverty Institute "research") to the State House on how well programs are doing. How can we blame politicians for developing ineffective programs when they are guided by biased testimony?

And please remember Thomas Wright. He was beaten to death, allegedly by foster parents deemed acceptable by this same "perspective." A girl, pregnant at 16, dropped out of high school, had a second child on welfare, and is now 21. Your taxes paid her to be a proper "role model" for Thomas.

When you look at only one point of view, you never know if you are right or wrong. You just continue to think you are right (until someone gets killed).

This is where I need citizens' help. Please tell your representatives that a "perspective school" shouldn't overly influence policy. Politicians, when you see me lobbying for what some describe as a "radical" welfare program, please listen. To all: Please demand an Academic Bill of Rights to protect intellectual diversity, so that our future can be directed by empirical knowledge and not "perspective."

Bill Felkner, of Hopkinton, is pursuing a master's degree at Rhode Island College's School of Social Work.