California’s university students know as well as anyone
how painful student fee increases can be.
After huge fee hikes in the last year, an undergraduate
education at one of the University of California’s campuses
costs upwards of $5,000 annually ““ at a university whose
architects imagined it being tuition-free.
And because of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s misplaced
fiscal priorities students once again stand to bear the brunt of a
budget crisis. Particularly obscene is the governor’s
proposed 40 percent increase for UC graduate and professional
school students.
Somehow, the fee hikes need to stop.
So, with what were probably the best intentions of representing
students here and throughout the country, U.S. Rep. Howard P.
McKeon, R-Santa Clarita, proposed the Affordability in Higher
Education Act. This legislation would have prohibited universities
from drastically raising fees lest they face losses in federal
funding. But though his motives may have been pure, McKeon’s
proposal inherently was flawed.
He was right to pull the bill.
Washington never should bully universities by threatening to
eliminate their funding. The federal government should not use
funding as a leverage point to end university protest of the
military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
policy. It should not use these threats when academics express
unpopular political sentiments.
Though most students would agree that keeping student fees low
is a nobler cause, the government should not issue threats of
funding reductions in this instance either.
Why not? Because if universities were to lose federal funding,
they would be in serious trouble. It would be unfair to force
students, professors and staff to deal with federal budget
reductions because administrators failed to keep fees low.
But even assuming universities would react to an edict like
McKeon’s by keeping fees down, there still would be
problems.
Consider the country’s largest state as a case study.
California’s budget process is hampered by its own unique and
unreasonable two-thirds vote requirement and fixed property tax
rates and also by huge amounts of mandated spending.
These spending requirements hurt universities. Despite
agreements between the UC and the state, funding for research,
enrollment growth and student services falls into the
“discretionary” portion of state expenditures. When
cash is in short supply, these areas are the first to be cut.
Requiring state governments to keep fees low would amount to yet
another mandated state expenditure. Though a fraction of state
funds would go toward supporting that requirement, McKeon’s
plan would have hurt other aspects of the university ““ like
hiring or enrollment capacity.
Across the country, officials say state and local governments
are paying far too much for federally required homeland security
provisions. Should Washington also make demands on
universities?
Last year, Congress had the opportunity to help states by
providing much-needed cash to help them with budget deficits.
Instead, it gave billions away in tax cuts for the rich.
Particularly when given this track record, federal edicts on
state spending should be met with the most skepticism
““Â even by people who seemingly would benefit.