Kunal Patel: Napolitano’s tuition hike plan a necessary, political approach

Janet Napolitano is no stranger to controversy.

When she was named the president of the University of California last year, her appointment was marred by protests across the UC campuses and widespread anger from students at being left out of the University’s decision-making process.

Fresh off of a stint as secretary of homeland security and without a background in education, Napolitano seemed to be the wrong choice to lead California’s flagship public research university system.

Similar sentiments were again expressed by students on Tuesday, when the Undergraduate Students Association Council passed a vote expressing no confidence in Napolitano and the regents in response to a recent approval of a tuition hike plan that may raise tuition by up to 5 percent per year for the next five years if the state does not provide additional funding.

But students fighting with all their energies against Napolitano are misguided – her experience as a politician is exactly what the UC needs in its president. Napolitano is rightfully leveraging the prospect of tuition increases in exchange for additional funding for the UC from the state during budget discussions next year.

Napolitano’s tuition hike plan may seem aggressive and proactive, but her strategy is most definitely warranted considering the numerous times that the state has refrained from providing additional funding for the UC.

One of the state’s most notable failures to fund the UC came when the regents supported the education initiative Proposition 30, so championed by Gov. Jerry Brown, with the understanding that its passage would provide the UC with at least 6 percent of the revenue from the bill, said Dianne Klein, a UC spokeswoman. However, the state has only provided 3.2 percent — or roughly half of what was expected from the proposition, Klein added.

Furthermore, during budget discussions earlier this year, the state legislature approved an additional $100 million for the UC, but after discussions between the legislature and Brown, the funding was removed from the budget, Klein said. Then, the state legislature approved $50 million across the UC for necessary deferred maintenance. Brown line-item vetoed that provision.

Since 2013, the state has had the UC in a choke hold because of a funding agreement that guarantees up to 5 percent base increases in state funding in exchange for a tuition freeze. However, those increases disappear if the UC raises tuition.

It is about time that the regents change their approach from taking what the state gives the UC to challenging the state directly for more funding. Especially considering that despite California having a budget surplus in the billions earlier this year, Brown has not planned additional funding outside of the base increases for the UC.

It is unacceptable that higher education is continuously marginalized by state politicians. The state clearly does not view higher education as a high priority, so Napolitano is forced to hardball the state to re-evaluate the value of higher education.

Napolitano’s hard-line approach toward the state shows that she is willing to fight the state for the students. Despite all the negative feedback regarding the tuition hike plan, the additional revenue from the proposed tuition hikes would go toward goals that would help the UC fulfill its mission, such as enrolling more students and lowering the student-to-faculty ratio.

While the implementation of the tuition hikes would hurt students, the goal of the tuition hike plan is to pressure the state to prevent the hikes by providing the UC the additional funding that it needs.

Napolitano should continue to play politics with the state to reach a compromise that is attuned with the intentions of California’s Master Plan For Higher Education – an efficient UC system with more financial resources geared toward providing an accessible and affordable high-quality education for California students.