Today, the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development held a hearing to examine the taxpayer-funded Truman Scholarship program which has been disproportionately awarded to candidates who favor liberal causes at a ratio of about 14:1 over conservative candidates. This program is shaping the nation’s future leaders, yet the data shows a dramatic political skew—raising serious questions about transparency, fairness, and whether public money is being used to advance an ideological agenda.
Subcommittee Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT) summarized the issue perfectly in his opening statement: "In short, the officers and board, the panel interviewers, and the students they select lean overwhelmingly left, and they do this all with taxpayer funds.”
In an exchange with Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI), Ms. Jennifer Kabbany, Editor-in-Chief at The College Fix discussed how the problem is systemic. "Study after study shows that [by a ratio of] 30 to 1...professors are liberal to conservative. So whoever is tasked on these campuses with selecting the Truman fellows to nominate forward to the regional committees is probably liberal...so it's really no surprise that the applicants that are moving forward, lean left," she explained.
Rep. James Moylan (R-GU) asked Dr. Frederick Hess, Senior Fellow and Director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, about his findings when it comes to the makeup of Truman board members. “One former Truman board member explained [to me] that when the question… of why there are not more right-leaning folks involved the program there are generally two responses. One is that Republicans and conservatives just aren’t interested in public service…and the second is [that] Republicans and conservatives are just not as academically accomplished...so they are losing out on a merit-based competition. Personally, having been a teacher, a professor, and a scholar at AEI for decades—I have found not either of those defenses to ring true,” Dr. Hess said.
Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC) explained the irony of having a scholarship program named after President Truman. “This program was created to honor President Harry Truman, a man who left college after one semester and never earned a degree—yet went on to become President. So, it’s deeply ironic to me that taxpayers who also never attended college just like Truman himself are now forced to fund elite post-graduate degrees for a handpicked few,” he said.
Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) highlighted how those who are enrolled at right-leaning institutions like Hillsdale College and Liberty University seem to be disqualified from receiving the scholarship. “In the entire history of the Truman scholarship program…only one from Hillsdale has won a scholarship…and if you look at right-leaning or faith based institutions it’s an extremely small number [of recipients],” said Mr. Adam Kissel, Visiting Fellow at the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
Rep. Bob Onder (R-MO) discussed with witnesses how we can get the Truman program back to its intended mission. “One of the points Congress made…in establishing the program was [that] it recognized President Truman’s commitment to national security. If you look at the winners of Truman fellowships today, they tend to be much more focused on current cultural advocacy and you find remarkably few who are focused on cyber security, on national defense, [etc]. So, part of the reason you’re seeing this bias is because we’re leaning away from the exact kind of national imperatives that this program is supposed to cultivate,” Dr. Hess concluded.
Bottom line: The Truman Foundation is receiving millions in taxpayer money, but if it promotes only one political viewpoint, it doesn’t deserve Congressional support, taxpayer funding, or its respected public image.
