In my years of student advocacy at UCLA, I have been to San Francisco to the University of California Board of Regents meetings twice. I, like many students, find the regents to be aloof to student concerns. When I lobbied them to move some meetings during the year to Southern California campuses, I was met with apathy and concerns for their security in the face of student protests. The regents are detached from student concerns and that is why I prioritized California’s Master Plan for Higher Education and UC Regent reform when I ran for UCLA’s Undergraduate Students Association Council external vice president. I am in solidarity with students in increasing the student voice on the board by creating undergraduate, graduate and professional positions. But SCA 1, a senate constitutional amendment proposed by state Sen. Ricardo Lara and Sen. Anthony Cannella, that would take away UC constitutional autonomy and make its decisions subject to the legislature, is not the answer to the change that the UC needs and here is why:
1. The California State University tuition increases and enrollment limitations have not been halted, so why would the legislature stop UC increases?
The CSU, unlike the UC, does not have constitutional autonomy. CSU tuition has increased twofold this past decade. Without control over their fee increases, the CSU has been forced to hold their enrollment rates down. While all that sounds well and good, they have also been forced to reduce enrollment to stave off the effects of longer student degree completion rates, low graduation rates, a lack of class sections and overcrowding in lecture halls. The reason that the UC keeps raising our tuition, even though they know it angers us, is because the state funds for the university have not lived up to their promises. This is insulting considering that students were key in making sure that Proposition 30 passed, which was supposed to increase funds to the UC. The loss of UC autonomy would result in the UC not being able to redirect the necessary portion of tuition and fee revenue to financial aid. Most of the tuition plans being proposed by the legislature right now include fee increases, which is evidence of the fact that tuition increases would be recurrent with or without this amendment.
2. Freedom of research and competitiveness would suffer.
Former Gov. Pat Brown, Gov. Jerry Brown’s father, implemented UC’s autonomy and helped realize the CA Master Plan. The UC gets part of its funding from the state. The other part of UC’s total funding comes from the federal government, hospital revenues, income from self-supporting enterprises, private entities and other sources outside of state government. The success of the UC with constitutional autonomy has been tremendously effective in stimulating many sectors of California’s economy, especially because of our unparalleled research programs. The ability to engage in research on politically sensitive but important issues, e.g. stem cell research, would be jeopardized. The potential loss of top faculty and graduate students due to the loss of competitiveness could jeopardize the $5.4 billion in annual research grants the UC receives. In order to further boost the economy, the UC must be able to enter research positions as quickly as possible, which would also serve to help employ college graduates.
3. Politics is politics.
SCA 1 does not cut tuition or halt the increases in any way and is merely a distraction from finding a long-term solution to funding woes. This threat to UC constitutional autonomy happened before with SCA 21 and ACA 24 in 2009 during tuition increases as well. The parties involved in the tuition increase should realize we are a powerful voting bloc. While people like UC President Janet Napolitano and Gov. Jerry Brown are not blameless in this situation by using students as political pawns in their state government chess game, Sen. Lara and Sen. Cannella seems to be taking advantage of the collateral damage and appeals to our anger with the Regents.
I rallied with fellow students when the UC Regents raised our tuition this past November. Since then, I have been researching and writing briefs on the tuition plans from the University, the Assembly, the State Senate and Gov. Brown’s vision for the UC. What I have concluded is that all the plans have large shortcomings and there is an apparent need to negotiate. Students should be key players at the table. We have so much power in shaping a compromise, but by supporting this constitutional amendment we are sacrificing our constitutional autonomy and our quality of education.
Friedman is a third-year political science student and the student director at the Westwood Neighborhood Council.
Good analysis and research from multiple perspectives. As you’ve seen, those in power do not want to compromise, but try and attain more power for their personal benefit (whether money, authority, or perceived respect). Students are also fickle and once their four years or so are up, they no longer care about the issues of tuition, advocacy, etc. Thus, this leaves the UC leadership and state stakeholders in charge of the interests of the UC. Although the current UC system might not seem as effective, could you imagine what would happen if the CA State Legislature was left to make decision on behalf of the university? This is a group mired in self-interest politics and (for a long time) an inability to seek compromise or even pass a state budget– something that is in the interests and benefit of all Californians!