As the deadline to pass the California State Budget approaches in June, the high-stakes game of political chicken between University of California President Janet Napolitano and Gov. Jerry Brown is heating up.
Napolitano is leveraging a tuition hike that can be entirely prevented if Brown increases funding to the UC by an additional $100 million in financial support this year on top of the $120 million contingent on tuition staying in place. Conversely, Brown could rescind the $120 million if Napolitano enacts the tuition hike.
Public perception of the political battle between Napolitano and Brown has not been very favorable toward Napolitano’s strategy. According to a recent poll of 1,505 California voters conducted by the Los Angeles Times and USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, 57 percent of California voters polled support Brown’s approach of cutting spending, limiting executive pay and adding more online classes versus 32 percent of voters who support Napolitano’s statement that the UC needs more state funding.
While public perception is currently not in Napolitano’s favor, she must remain steadfast in her current approach to effectively bargain with Brown for additional funding and to change the perception of the UC in the minds of California voters. And in the face of political opposition that threatens to change the fundamental role of the UC in California, students, too, have a vested interest in putting aside their differences with the UC president.
The results of this poll should not be interpreted as evidence that Californians do not support additional state funding for the UC. Considering the vehement criticism that tuition hikes have received in the past, this poll shows that Napolitano has a relatively high – but not a majority – support for her stance. The 32 percent of voters who support Napolitano’s stance is significant and can increase with continued shrewd public relations work.
Changing statewide public opinion is difficult and may take several years. However, reframing the importance of education is a worthwhile endeavor for Napolitano. Traditionally, public opinion on controversial issues just has to be closely split for legislative action to pass. For example, a month after President Barack Obama signed his health care law in March 2010, the bill was viewed favorably by 46 percent of those polled versus 40 percent who viewed the bill unfavorably, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll.
Napolitano has been responsive to the requests of Californian voters who argue that the UC should cut costs. This week, the UC announced that it will increase nonresident enrollment at some campuses by 800 to 1000 students to subsidize tuition for California students. The UC decided to cap the number of out-of-state students at UCLA and UC Berkeley, delayed the potential enactment of the tuition hike to fall and formed a special committee with Brown to review UC finances, showing that Napolitano is a reasonable negotiator and has the interests of Californians in mind. But without the support of California voters, Napolitano’s efforts to find some form of middle ground may prove to be difficult.
Let us remember that the tuition hike plan is preventable. Its purpose is to show the state that the UC needs to continue improving accessibility and quality of education to serve the ever-increasing need of affordable higher education for California students.
And if the tuition hikes are enacted, they would be a necessary evil to force the state to make higher education a priority. Napolitano’s tuition hike plan, which may increase tuition by up to 5 percent annually for the next five years, will give Brown five opportunities to stop tuition increases with additional state funding. And if Brown fails to do so, discussions surrounding higher education will become increasingly significant every year as tuition climbs higher.
The UC is supposed to be an engine for social mobility. But if attitudes toward higher education do not change and tuition hikes become necessary, there may be no social mobility for those who need it most. As the number of qualified applicants increases at the UC, the world-class education that the UC offers to California students becomes available only to those with the highest grades, test scores and financial means.
Napolitano, and the students she represents at the UC, would do well to keep that in mind during her negotiations with Brown.
The public perception of UC is that it is a wasteful, bloated institution that favors the money of out of state and international students over CA students. This is fanned by politicians who look to make themselves appear as advocates for education (by throwing out figures related to enrollment numbers, tuition costs, and salaries and trying to tie all of them together) and scorned parents of students who are not accepted to UC or the campus of their choice (namely the two most impacted campuses, Berkeley and UCLA) and then blaming the university for the rejections instead of realizing the state support for CA students at UC is low. Prop 30 gave the illusion that taxpayers were contributing more to higher education through income tax and sales tax, when the reality is that is only maintained current levels of funding.
The other biggest obstacle for UC and President Napolitano is the author’s suggestion that “students, too, have a vested interest in putting aside their differences with the UC president.” I agree, but a segment of students had, and still hold, their unfavorable personal opinions of the president and therefore will never support her in these endeavors. However, if tuition were to increase, you know those same students will get their torch and pitchforks ready. Therefore she can’t win, no matter her negotiating tactic. Yes, she’s not perfect, but this public struggle over the cost of a UC education isn’t either. It’s more a tug-of-war rather than a compromise of what is best in the current and future economic situation.