Editorial: Cap on state cuts, not fees, is solution
By Daily Bruin Staff
Feb. 15, 2010 9:33 p.m.
Jeff Denham (R-Merced) introduced a bill to the state Senate last month titled the “Student Protection Act.”
Known to legislators as SB 917, this bill would cap fees of any public university in the state at 10 percent annually and would require a 180-day waiting period before the adopted increase would become effective
This board recognizes the need for reforms that would protect students from unplanned and exorbitant fee increases, but we question Denham’s motives and the validity of his proposed reforms. The bill was drafted in response to the UC Board of Regents’ decision in November to raise student fees by 32 percent and Denham is riding the wave of anger that followed.
However, Denham is pointing his finger in entirely the wrong direction. It’s not the regents that students need protection from ““ rather, it is the state, which has been a wholly unreliable financial partner to the University of California. A Senate bill introduced by Dean Florez (D-Shafter) titled “The California College and University Fee Stabilization Act of 2010″ that also introduces tuition caps also suffers from the same misdirected sentiment. Students would be better “protected” if a cap was placed on state cuts of funding to education, as each tuition hike has been a response to sharp drops in state funding to the UCs.
The Student Protection Act does not erect any real protections. An annual cap based on an arbitrary percentage will not curb fee increases in any significant way as the UC Regents, anticipating budget shortfalls, can simply elect to maximally increase fees every year in response. The 180-day delay provision would hamper the UC’s ability to respond to sudden budget shortfalls, which could result in drastic reductions in services at campuses statewide while providing only superficial protection against tuition hikes.
What exactly is being protected here? Students or Denham’s Senate seat?
Capping tuition hikes sounds appealing and capitalizes on students’ anxieties, but the real issue is the volatility of the state budget and state’s lack of commitment to education funding.
In 2000, the UC bucked a national trend in education funding by not raising student fees for the sixth consecutive year. In fact, the mandatory system-wide student fees were reduced each year from 1998 to 2000. The UC was able to provide a superior education without excessive fees because the state budget provided adequate funding ““ decisions made by the governor, his office, the legislature and people of California. The root of the problem then isn’t the UC bureaucracy ““ rather, it’s simple state politics.
Any changes made to the California Constitution with regard to the UC should be well-meditated, sustainable solutions ““ not opportunistic reactions to popular negative sentiment. We don’t need our funding problems cannibalized for political capital.
