Editorial: Students not responsible for funding UC

If students at the University of California were interested in
being held financially responsible for ensuring their quality of
education, they would have gone to private schools in the first
place.

But at public schools like the UC, the state is responsible for
keeping the institution afloat. In the case of a budget shortfall,
which the UC and state are each facing now and in the coming years,
taxpayers’ pockets, not students, should be the source for
university funding.

Yet the UC Regents approved a preliminary budget Thursday that
could increase student fees by as much as 6.5 percent if the state
fails to provide the funds it promised the UC in the 1998
Partnership Agreement. Thus far, despite UC commitments to the
promises it made under the agreement, the deal has been ominously
underfunded by the state.

Without the promised funds or a student fee increase, the UC
will likely have to cut services in 2003-2004. But if the state is
having trouble providing necessary funding to the UC, it should
raise taxes to generate the needed revenue. This may not be a
politically pleasing alternative, but it coincides with the mission
of the UC ““ raising student fees does not.

Given the fact that the state economy is in shambles and the
budget has been plagued by cuts system-wide, proponents of a
student fee increase have understandably asked when, if not now, a
student fee increase would be appropriate. The answer is never.

According to the California Voter Foundation’s Archive of
Campaign Promises, Governor Gray Davis’ top priority during
the 1998 elections was to “Restore our public schools to
greatness by raising our expectations of students, increasing
funding and requiring more parent-teacher-student
interaction.”

Note that he does not mention raising student fees or
undermining the ideological mission of the UC anywhere in this
promise. And while “increasing funding” could be
achieved by these means, it is implied that the burden of this
ambiguous goal would not be achieved this way.

To his credit, Davis has enacted legislation to increase the
financial aid available to students. Any student who maintains a B
average in high school is now guaranteed some form of financial
aid, and Cal Grants have consistently provided at least partial
funding for underpriveliged students. But these and similar
programs are enfeebled if the gains students make by attaining
financial aid are negated by a student fee increase.

The UC has made substantial progress over the past four years,
especially in the area of access to education, but if Davis wants
to maintain the integrity of his campaign promise, he will have the
taxpayers, not the students, fund this increase.

A tax increase, though, is only a short-term solution. If the UC
is ever to become financially stable, it will have to implement
enrollment caps to keep its annual costs consistent. The caps
would, of course, have to be determined on a campus by campus
basis, but without them the UC will always be going back to the
taxpayers ““ or worse yet, the students ““ for more
money. Enrollment caps would be decided according to each
campus’ resources and funding ““ which the state can
help increase by living up to its partnership agreement.