Students pay the price when universities are run like a business

Arizona’s governing body for the state’s public university system this month approved tuition and fee increases ranging from 2.5% to 5%.

At a public hearing in March, undergraduate, graduate, international students and faculty members overwhelmingly spoke against the proposal, citing the ongoing pandemic, rising inflation and housing crisis.

The Arizona Board of Regents nonetheless charged forward with the rate increase.

The Arizona Constitution holds that college should be “as nearly free as possible.” Nevertheless, with historic tuition raises since 2008, the board has lost touch with its principal mission of promoting access to education.

It is inexplicable that tuition is being increased despite the Legislature crafting the upcoming budget with a $5.3 billion surplus.

The revenue provision in the Constitution reads: “The legislature shall make such appropriations, to be met by taxation, as shall insure the proper maintenance of all state educational institutions, and shall make such special appropriations as shall provide for their development and improvement.”

The framers’ intent to make public education affordable for students is clear.

Board of Regents Chair Lyndel Manson ridiculously claims that the tuition increase prioritizes educational access and quality while protecting students from “extraordinary inflationary cost pressures.” It is dubious how increased educational cost correlates with improved access and quality.

The board challenged a 2019 Attorney General’s Office lawsuit in defense of its practice of using its tax-exempt status for private business. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled in their favor.

Much to the chagrin of students with limited housing options, ASU partnered with businesses to build Mirabella, a $252 million retirement home on its campus. Currently, in another partnership, a $125 million Omni Resort is under construction at the university. Arizona students routinely see investments made not in their education but real estate.

While the Board of Regents may claim to be strategically positioning Arizona to be competitive, they underappreciate the role out-of-state and international students play in the university community. There are tens of thousands of each, and they contribute to the system’s success through academic and extracurricular achievement.

By making the cost of attendance unaffordable, ASU will lose nonresident students and its distinction of being the No. 1 university chosen by international students.

The Board of Regents downplayed the financial hardship of students, citing the statistic of $3.1 billion of systemwide financial aid distributed. What isn’t highlighted is the unique burden tuition increases have historically placed not on those of lower or higher income brackets, but on those of the middle class.

To qualify for a Pell Grant, combined family income must be $27,000 or less. There are families who are ineligible but still have substantial financial need, resulting in students taking out extraordinary loans.

What is needed is an expansion of scholarship opportunities.

Of the three universities, Arizona State is the only one that does not offer a full-tuition scholarship; and none of the three have institutional scholarships that cover housing and meal expenses. With increased costs and fees for attendance, the gap between financial need and financial aid has widened.

If Manson would like to add substance to her comment about saving students from inflationary cost pressures, a commitment to expanding scholarship programs would be forthcoming.

For university investments in the energy, health care or technology sectors to be justified, the board must place the needs and interests of students first.

The federal lobbying power of the universities can be redirected to the state level to appropriate funding for education. For all the talk of nanobots and innovation, the New American University model championed by ASU President Michael Crow is dysfunctional when students are subtracted from the equation.

From CEO-like pay for university administrators to unnecessary campus resorts, the Arizona Board of Regents has demonstrated that their interest is not serving students but businesses, foundations and ventures.

Raising tuition costs, adding a total of 73 new fees across the system, and increasing housing and meal costs do not at all align with the mission of a board tasked with serving students.

To faithfully advance its mission, the Regents need to commit to locking tuition rates for the next four years or until the improved quality of educational instruction can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.