As graduate and professional students elect our student representatives to the Graduate Students Association, now is a good time to take a sober look at California’s budget situation, the University of California’s finances and possible solutions to the problem of increasingly expensive graduate education.
First, it is important to remember that the crisis in public higher education did not start with the most recent recession. In 1985, the state invested $25,000 per full-time UC student, an amount that has steadily declined to about $10,000 today (in constant 2007-2008 dollars). Between 1995 and 2009, the cost of in-state tuition at the UCLA School of Law increased from about $7,000 to more than $35,000.
Furthermore, the accountability deficit in higher education is not new either. The UC Board of Regents has 16 members who are appointed to 12-year terms. Regents are not confirmed by the State Assembly or Senate. If they are not accountable to California voters or UC employees and students, to whom are they accountable? I argue that they are accountable to corporate interests, since 12 of the 16 current regents are either corporate lawyers or former and current corporate executives and board members.
Corporations certainly want an educated workforce, but they do not usually care whether universities are accessible to racially and socially diverse constituencies. And most corporations prefer a low tax rate to a diverse workforce. This might be part of why the UCs have not done more to increase diversity, even within the restrictions imposed by Proposition 209, which bans affirmative action.
The regents’ accountability deficit is seen in everything from rising tuition to the scandalous allocation of student fees toward a $185 million renovation of Pauley Pavilion despite assurances that private donations would cover the costs.
UCLA has adopted an education model that hurts undergraduate and graduate students alike. More and more undergraduate courses are taught by graduate students and adjunct faculty, creating a “casualization” of the academy. While many graduate students are good teachers, they are not as well-trained as tenure-track faculty, resulting in decreased quality of education for undergraduates.
Bob Samuels, president of the University Council-American Federation of Teachers, noted that this burdens academic graduate students in two ways: They are expected to teach more, leaving less time for their research, and they have fewer job prospects after they obtain their doctorates.
Education is not the only place where young people are being marginalized by noisier or wealthier interest groups. It is illegal to discriminate against employees more than 40 years old because of their age, but the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act permits employers to fire younger employees because of their age. Voters and the courts have upheld Proposition 209, even though most students who would be affected by it were too young to be able to vote in the ballot measure.
Young people will be asked to pay back the nation’s debt and are routinely cajoled into taking unpaid internships. When we do find a paying job, it is more often a temporary position with no health care benefits or pension plan.
Finally, our student loans are one of the few types of non-dischargeable debts. Unlike others, student loans are not forgiven in the event of a personal bankruptcy.
Putting our university’s budget situation in a broader context shows us that we are working to oppose not just misguided priorities that make higher education one of the easiest targets for budget cuts. We are also working against a culture in which ageism, race discrimination and greed are far too prevalent. Even if the economy rebounds tomorrow and the UC budget is restored, we will still have work to do.
We need to increase the accountability of our decision makers and create a real political voice for young people. Too often our voices are acknowledged but not really listened to.
As we work to defend public education and make our society more just, we have to put forth our strongest arguments and select our allies carefully.
Society benefits enormously when young people pursue higher education to become teachers, social workers, attorneys, businesspeople, scientists and health care professionals. So it is patently unfair that young people should shoulder the cost of that education virtually alone.
Moreover, most economists recognize that cutting university admissions during a recession is the exact wrong policy. Higher education is the perfect counter-cyclical policy in that it reduces pressure on the labor market, stimulates the economy in the short term (through increased employment on campuses) and produces long-term growth (through increasing human and social capital).
Our most obvious allies in the effort to preserve public higher education are other students and future generations of students. This is why the Public Education Party wants GSA to rejoin the University of California Student Association and present a united front to Sacramento and Washington, D.C.
Our other important allies are the campus employees who have a stake in maintaining public funding of the UCs. These same employees help make our university one of the best in the country.
The Public Education Party has been unofficially endorsed by several campus unions, and we have a history of working to find common ground between employees and students.
Lincoln Ellis is a second-year graduate student in law and Public Education Party candidate for president of the Graduate Students Association.