Tuition Up, Students Ignored
UNC's Recent Tuition Hikes Continue to Ignore Students' Interests.
Brian Sopp
February 2006
It took the Board of Trustees less than an hour on the afternoon of Jan. 25 to approve tuition and fee increases for all UNC students. It took even less time for the Board, Chancellor Moeser, and Student Body President Seth Dearmin to completely ignore students’ concerns.
Trustee Karol Mason, chairwoman of the audit and finance committee, opened the discussion on tuition by presenting the finance committee’s recommendation to the Board. Mason advised the Board to raise undergraduate tuition for residents and nonresidents $250 and $1,100 respectively. Graduate tuition would be raised by $500 and student fees would be increased $170.05 for undergraduates and $166.05 for graduate students.
The proposal was unanimously approved by the trustees. If the UNC Board of Governors approves of the trustees’ decision, the hikes would bring tuition to $4,873 for in-state undergraduates, $19,511 for out-of-state undergraduates, $5,514 for in-state graduate students, and $19,512 for out-of-state graduate students.
In formulating this recommendation, the finance committee was “seeking to balance a lot of competing interests,” Mason said.
During the Board’s discussion of the tuition proposal, board member Richard Williams was concerned that the increase might hurt the University’s ability to attract quality nonresident students. A university representative voiced an understanding for that concern, but said “my concern is mitigated by the increase in merit and need-based financial aid that these increases will allow.”
Provost Robert Shelton told the Board that the increases should not hurt the quality of UNC’s applicant pool. The Board’s goal of keeping in-state tuition within the 25th percentile of UNC’s peer institutions and out-of-state tuition below the 75th percentile of peer institutions will be maintained by this proposal, he said. Shelton estimated that in-state tuition will remain $1300 below the 25th percentile and out-of-state tuition will remain $6,000 below the 75th percentile, “assuming our peers are not moving.”
Student Body President Seth Dearmin proposed a resolution during the tuition debate calling for more predictability in the Board’s tuition policy. The nonbinding resolution changes the trustee’s tuition philosophy to consider predictability to be “over the short and long term a core element.”
But before the resolution could be approved, some trustees voiced concern that the resolution would set the agenda of the Board of Trustees in the future, when the board will have a different composition.
Dearmin replied to this objection by pointing out that students have been more civil this year in their opposition to tuition increases than in past years.
“Students understand the need for tuition increases,” he said. Students simply want the ability to anticipate and plan for tuition changes that might occur while they are at UNC.
Dearmin’s arguments prevailed and the Board passed the nonbinding resolution to consider predictability as a part of their tuition philosophy.
Before the tuition proposal went to a vote, Chris Cameron, the Opinion Page Editor of The Daily Tar Heel was allowed to address the trustees. He had not been allowed to speak during the finance committee meeting, but wanted the opportunity to voice what he saw as the student view on tuition increases.
Cameron told the Board that some of the increases should not be passed. For example, the $50 increase in the athletic fee is earmarked for the renovation of Carmichael gym, which will bring the University in compliance with title IX. Cameron contended that it is not the responsibility of students to fulfill the requirements of title IX. Furthermore, student fees are supposed to be for services rendered to students, not for building projects. The athletic department has a rainy day fund for such purposes.
“If we do have to pay, then we would like to see some return,” Cameron said.
Unfortunately, Cameron’s words went unheeded. It seems that allowing him to speak was seen by the board as a gesture and nothing more.
As soon as Cameron sat down, the trustees moved to a vote on the tuition proposal and it passed unanimously.
What was most irksome about the Board’s neglect of students was not Dearmin’s false claim that students supported the tuition increase, or Moeser’s silence following Cameron’s remarks, but the Board’s inability to understand the gravity of their decision. Their lack of professionalism was epitomized by Richard Williams’s comments at the end of the meeting.
After the tuition and fee increases were passed and the Board moved to recess, Williams asked if they were going to vote on the fee increases.
“I was not aware that fees and tuition had been lumped together,” he said.
The trustees laughed at his mistake and rose for dinner on the University’s dime.