University of California President Janet Napolitano and Gov. Jerry Brown are engaged in a chess match for funding and have taken to using students as pawns.
Recent highlights of the match include Brown vetoing $50 million in additional funds for the UC system at the end of September. The UC Regents spent September lobbying for the additional funds while simultaneously approving pay raises for chancellors. Now the lowest-paid chancellors will make $383,160 annually.
Napolitano made her latest move last week. She decided to sacrifice a few pawns to put pressure on Brown and announced plans for a tuition increase of up to 5 percent annually for the next five years depending on the amount of state funding Brown agrees to give the UC.
The proposal would ideally motivate students to lobby for more money from the state, as their tuition hangs in the balance. But Napolitano’s lack of communication with students about the proposal, as well as the vagueness of the proposal itself, may harm her ability to get students on her side.
Napolitano should have been more open with student leaders about what the UC needs from the state and why increasing tuition may be necessary. This doesn’t mean hinting at the possibility of a tuition hike; it means being transparent about why the increased funds are necessary, what they will go toward and why the UC couldn’t have just reprioritized its budget instead of increasing tuition. Napolitano can’t expect students to get behind an increase like this without giving them a proper explanation of why it’s happening. This new proposal shifts blame onto the state Legislature without giving students thorough information about the UC’s own management of its funds.
I’m not suggesting that there is an easy solution to the shortage of UC funding. It’s entirely possible a tuition increase is necessary, but this sudden decision left many people in the dark. Conrad Contreras, Undergraduate Student Association Council external vice president, said our student government didn’t find out about the proposed tuition increase until last Wednesday, just a day before Napolitano released it to the public. Even Contreras, whose job it is to represent the UCLA student body to the UC, was left totally out of the loop.
Shortly after the announcement of the plan, all 10 UC chancellors released a joint statement in support of the plan, suggesting that while students were left in the dark, the chancellors were a part of the decision and had enough of a heads-up to craft a long and thorough statement.
Napolitano and the chancellors may feel that the increase couldn’t have been announced any other way. But even the proposal itself is unclear on what exactly the state would have to do to keep tuition stagnant.
Napolitano hasn’t been very transparent about what amount of state support would prevent the 5 percent increase. This sort of specificity is necessary to make sure students understand the current funding situation of the UC.
The lack of transparency and student involvement makes it seem like the tuition increase was merely a political move that’s backfiring because many students are directing their anger at the UC instead of at the state. This is a problem both for students and for the UC; students are left without a voice and the UC has sparked backlash at a time when students and administrators should be focused on encouraging the state to increase funding.
While Napolitano keeps trying to pull strings and Brown continues his reluctance to give in, students are left in the middle trying to find the best solution. But the funny thing about this political chess match is that there is no best way out for students. From the perspectives of Napolitano and Brown, it seems that it’s okay to sacrifice a few pawns to get a leg up on the other.
Ultimately, it will be up to student leaders to voice opposition to the policy in order to hold Napolitano accountable for explaining the details of the UC budget. Whether or not the proposal passes, this sort of transparency is necessary for Napolitano’s credibility to students and in figuring out what’s actually necessary from the state. Otherwise, students will remain in the dark, and there won’t be a winner to this chess match anytime soon.