The University of California Board of Regents is paying off the costs of two lawsuits brought by professional degree students over unexpected fee increases. Ironically, the regents are covering the expenses incurred through these lawsuits by charging students an additional $60 in tuition.
Though we understand that the regents are in a tough position, with few extra funds available, we wish the board had found a way to cover the costs without burdening students.
When the regents voted at their March meeting to continue the $60 tuition surcharge, which was first implemented in 2007, they sent two messages to students.
First, that it is acceptable for enrolled students to cover University expenses that are unrelated to their educational experiences.
Second, that if students decide to challenge UC actions through litigation, they may be putting their peers at risk of higher tuition in the future.
In 2004, a group of UC professional degree students filed a lawsuit against the regents. The students took issue with a fee increase they had to pay after the regents promised their fees would stay the same the whole time they were enrolled at the University.
The court ruled in favor of the students, saying that the regents’ promises implied a contract with the students guaranteeing that their fees would not rise, and that the students should be refunded for the increase. In 2007, the regents began collecting a tuition surcharge from all students to pay off the $42 million in damages for this case.
Another group of students filed a similar lawsuit against the regents in 2010, and the court again ruled that the regents should compensate the students for fee increases.
At their March meeting, all but two of the regents voted to continue the $60 tuition surcharge for the next five academic years. This extension will finish paying off the first lawsuit and cover the $49 million in damages for the second lawsuit. The regents also said that a third to a half of the money from the surcharge would go toward financial aid. UC President Mark Yudof said at the meeting that the University had few alternatives. Nathan Brostrom, UC executive vice president for business operations, said that the lawsuits could be paid for by cutting UC programs, but that quality would be sacrificed in the process.
Brostrom also commended the regents for being transparent about the surcharge by making it a separate fee, rather than lumping it with other fees.
While we appreciate the regents’ transparency regarding the tuition surcharge, ideally there would have been no surcharge at all. Ideally, the university would be searching for a more creative solution to pay off the costs of the lawsuits.