Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

The politics of tuition

Posted on March 27, 2008 by Staff

By Chris Fitzsimon 

Tuition at University of North Carolina campuses is the subject of the latest skirmish between Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and state Treasurer Richard Moore in their battle for the Democratic nomination for governor.

A Moore television ad accuses Perdue of “leading the charge” for tuition increases in her position as chair of the Senate budget committee in the mid-1990s and cites Perdue’s comment that one proposed increase was just “beer and party money.” Perdue responded with an ad of her own that says Moore voted for tuition increases too when he was a member of the House.

The back and forth is another reminder of a campaign that remains frustrating for Democratic voters trying to decide who ought to lead North Carolina for the next four years. But from a state policy perspective, the exchange is good news.

It reinforces the view that tuition at public universities should remain low, or free “as practicable,” as the state constitution puts it.

But almost every member of the General Assembly has voted at some point to raise tuition at UNC campuses, despite promises from most legislators to right tuition increases.

UNC President Erskine Bowles was praised a couple of years ago for his plan to limit tuition hikes to 6.5 percent a year for four years, though that means an increase of 26 percent in a student’s undergraduate career is possible. It is hard to imagine that’s what the authors of the state constitution had in mind.

Perdue touts her “College Promise” program that expands tuition assistance for students in low-income families, the latest well-meaning attempt to reconcile rapidly rising tuition with the constitutional mandate.

Perdue’s plan and the highly successful Carolina Covenant at UNC-CH exist to make sure cost doesn’t keep qualified North Carolina students from attending college — a noble goal.

But the plans don’t address the philosophical basis for keeping tuition low, the state’s commitment to providing a low-cost college education to every student in North Carolina, not just ones from poor families.

That drives the market fundamentalists crazy. They like to point out that many students at UNC-CH and N.C. State are from families with incomes well above the state average, and that the taxpayers are “subsidizing” their education.

One right-wing think tank has proposed a 40 percent increase in tuition to reduce the “higher education subsidy,” and that phrase continues to seep into the state policy debate, distorting the role of public universities and advancing the philosophy that user fees should pay for the few government services that remain in the market fundamentalists’ perfect world.

But there is no state subsidy of higher education. The UNC system is a public institution, owned and operated by the state for the benefit of the people of North Carolina, and ideally every student ought to be treated the same when they enroll, not divided into students who must rely on piecing together work schedules and student-aid packages to stay in school and those who don’t.

Wealthy families are not supposed to pay higher tuition at public universities, they are supposed to pay more in state taxes that support them. The user-fee model the right wingers promote assumes that the only person who benefits from a public institution, including UNC, is the person using the services the institution provides.

That ignores the immense impact that the UNC system has on the quality of life in the state, not to mention the role it plays in economic development and research. A small percentage of the state’s population actually makes it to the Museum of History every year. The logic of the right’s tuition argument would mean that museum visitors should have to pay for the museum’s operation through ticket prices, which would mean admission would cost hundreds of dollars.

There is a state higher-education subsidy on the books, but it is not the tuition at UNC campuses. It is the roughly $86 million the state gives private colleges and universities to help pay for the tuition of North Carolina students who attend them. Almost half of the money is not based on need, just allocated to the private institutions, like Duke, Campbell and Davidson, while the state is increasing tuition at UNC campuses.

UNC is always described as a bargain in national publications because of its relatively low tuition in comparison to other top-flight public university systems. That is something to be proud of, not a justification for increasing the cost of attending college.

Moore and Perdue are not likely to stop attacking each other about tuition (or anything else) any time soon. But at least both are saying raising tuition is a bad idea. Now if they will pledge to defend the importance of well-supported public institutions in our state, we’d really be getting somewhere.

1 thought on “The politics of tuition”

  1. Ragan says:
    March 27, 2008 at 7:58 am

    The problem is that those who attend NC universities aren’t likely to contribute to our economy, since many move out of state upon graduation. As a taxpaper, I’m tire of paying for everybody else to get something. On the other hand, the Museum of History should be funded well. The visitor is either a citizen or tourist (which means they are paying in other ways, ie hotels, gas, etc.). I say take the money from the colleges and give it all to the NC Museum of History! +

Comments are closed.

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme