The
Los Angeles Times reported this
morning that “California voters overwhelming oppose a tuition increase at
University of California campuses, even if that forces the colleges to cut
spending or accept more out-of-state students who pay higher fees”.
The
poll also discovered that Californians believe that their state “has done a
poor job of making a college education affordable”, and think that California
Governor Jerry Brown is correct to call out the UC Regents and UC President for
their efforts to raise tuition.
The
poll finds California’s voters at their most typically obtuse and obdurate. They oppose tuition increases, but apparently
don’t realize that tuition increases have been necessary over the years because
they have refused to provide UC with sufficient funding, while simultaneously
asking the University to strive for excellence in research and public
service.
Taking
more students, and taking those students from an increasingly diverse state
costs money. Performing world class
research, preserving world class faculty, and maintaining world class campuses
require money. I hope that many
Californians would agree that those are worthwhile ambitions, in contrast to
the state’s half-witted Governor who wants a leaner, meaner university that
shoves students in and out the door, giving them a tattered product instead of
a rigorous learning experience. Brown is
dismissive of the UC’s research and its capacity to transform the lives and
livelihoods of Californians.
Californians, I hope, feel differently.
But
if Californians agree that those ambitions are worthwhile—excellence in
education and research—they have a funny way of showing it. Older generations in particular—the very
people who attended UC for free or close to it—have consistently opposed
creating a tax system that would allocate sufficient funding to UC for the
institution to perform its mission for subsequent generations. Having climbed up a ladder constructed by
others to a position of success or at least security, those generations are now
breaking off the rungs to prevent younger Californians making the same ascent.
If
the state has done a poor job of making college affordable, that is to a large
degree because voters have rejected one effort after another to raise the
serious kind of revenue necessary to keeping UC truly public—that is, an
institution supported by the collective for the good of the state’s youth.
Voters
have not hesitated to discipline legislators and Governors who have argued for
the need to reinvest in our public sphere, and voters have conditioned
politicians in the state to steer clear of reforming the tax system or our
political structure, moves which are seen as assaults on the surplus wealth of
the upper-middle classes and the affluent—the people who, having benefited from
a vibrant public sphere in their youths, are now content to trash and de-fund
the same sphere.
UC
could certainly manage its resources more wisely. The past years have seen the unseemly
bloating of an administrative class, the primary purpose of which often seems
to shoot their institution in the foot by granting themselves outrageous
bonuses and pay raises at the same time that they raise tuition for students
and request more funds from the state.
The
basic immorality and strategic stupidity of the market approach adopted by UC’s
administration should not obscure the fact that cutting administrative salaries
would not make up for the systematic shortfall in public funding the system has
experienced over the years.
Voters
support Jerry Brown’s arguments about the University of California because
those are arguments that let them and the Governor—long a foe of public higher
education, in stark contrast to his father—off the hook for their serial
irresponsibility and their failure to maintain the system of higher education
that is in their trust.
But
many of those voters might support Brown because it has been so long since they
have been presented with any alternatives to the smaller, crueler state that
they live in today. It has been a long
time since the state experienced a political movement in favour of creating a
more communitarian California, one in which citizens realize that as a matter of
moral fact as well as of practicality, they have a responsibility to one
another and to future generations.
It
has been a long time since the state’s leadership expressed confidence in the
ability of the state government—the legislature, the executive, and the voters
who exercise outsized power through the state’s initiative process—to play an
active, respectful role in the lives of citizens, promoting the kinds of
institutions and investments that have the potential to lead to equality and
justice in California. I see no such
movements or leaders on the horizon, but students, staff, and faculty at
California’s universities should be thinking about how to work with those other
communities who suffer from the absence of equality and justice, and to forge
such a movement, to reclaim the state’s public sphere.