A mass of angry faces and loud chanting greeted me as I ran up the stairs of Covel Commons. The energy was terrifying, and I feared for my safety. Later, I heard of student arrests and tasing incidents. Those are my most striking recollections of the student responses to the UC fee hikes last November.
Even with the dramatic protests, higher education has been garnering little spotlight from political candidates and incumbent officials for the 2010 midterm elections.
Although the topic of higher education fails to be a priority in most election cycles, the dismal economy and the growing federal deficit exacerbates this trend for today’s midterm elections.
Repercussions of the bad economy include increased tuition fees, canceled classes and furloughed professors, but the consequences aren’t exclusive to UCLA. In fact, public universities across the nation are suffering.
Because college students have virtually no influential voice in politics, higher education is rarely a top priority in political platforms. The neglectful pattern is fostered by the propensity for most young voters to affiliate with the Democrats and their liberal policies.
I imagine this inclination allows the Democratic Party to take its support for granted, while the Republican Party far from caters to them.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that only 9 percent of Americans regard education as the “most important issue this year” when casting their votes for Congress. Meanwhile, the economy, health care and the deficit amassed 42 percent, 17 percent and 13 percent of the votes, respectively.
As for the future of higher education, I can only catch glimpses from political candidates.
The Democratic candidate for California governor, Jerry Brown, has unclear propositions of creating a new “Master” plan to reduce tuition for state-funded colleges, funneling state money from the prisons to higher education without endangering the public and introducing online courses to universities.
Yet, Brown fails to elucidate definite future plans and mostly highlights past accomplishments and intangible ideas.
On the other hand, Meg Whitman, the Republican California gubernatorial candidate, acknowledges California’s treasures ““ the University of California and the California State University systems ““ and promises to invest $1 billion of the state’s welfare money to reconstruct these public universities.
However, with the unemployment rate so high, welfare is essential to many citizens. As of September 2010, the national unemployment rate reached 9.6 percent while California’s rate was at 12.4 percent as of August. Decreasing such financial assistance will result in too many casualties in already diminished standards of life.
Politicians attempt to consolidate enough support to win their individual elections, which is commonly done by appeasing the majority of voters.
And currently, most constituents’ main concerns are the federal deficit and the less-than-ideal economy ““ the high unemployment rate subsumed.
To attain victory, focusing on higher education in candidates’ agendas is not a prudent decision. But the lack of attention higher learning has received is tragic because it is a good investment in the economy.
For today’s election, the issue of higher education broaches only on the logistics of financing state colleges across the nation whose funds have been cut and making them more affordable.
The California public college system has suffered one of the harshest blows in the nation: Tuition has escalated 182 percent from 2002, and the budget has diminished by almost $1 billion since the 2008 academic year.
California candidates’ lack of planning on higher education, specifically the UC system, is a reflection of the national political mood: a general disinterest in higher learning.
Think there are more important things to worry about than education? E-mail Lee at jlee@media.ucla.edu.
Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu.