Faculty for University Tuition Plan

But the same faculty members who stood behind the administrators' proposal only weeks ago are now almost unanimously opposed to a different tuition proposal being considered by the UNC-system Board of Governors.

Professors say they back the first proposal in part because it could immediately raise faculty salaries, but they say the BOG's new proposal would negatively affect faculty and UNC-CH as a whole.

The proposal, suggested by BOG member Robert Warwick, would cap UNC-CH's campus-based increase at $250 and implement a 10 percent systemwide hike for next year.

Because money from the systemwide increase would be redistributed to each of the 16 campuses, UNC-CH could pay more than it would receive.

Money from a campus-initiated tuition increase would directly fund improvements at UNC-CH.

The BOG is set to vote on the tuition increase proposals Wednesday.

Faculty members say they will work with UNC-CH students, staff and administrators to convince BOG members that Warwick's proposal is not in the University's best interest.

At the Feb. 22 Faculty Council meeting, UNC-CH professors voiced opposition to Warwick's proposal, saying it would unfairly penalize UNC-CH students in the interest of funding improvements at other system schools.

Faculty Council Chairwoman Sue Estroff said that while she understands the importance of supporting other system schools, Warwick's proposal goes too far. "This goes beyond generosity to something more," Estroff said. "It would be a devastating blow."

Faculty members say they realize it might seem inconsistent that they fervently support the $400 plan and just as strongly oppose the new BOG proposal.

"It's a little difficult to support one tuition increase and not another," said William Smith, a mathematics professor and Faculty Council member.

But many faculty say Warwick's proposal could warrant involvement in tuition increase protests orchestrated by students. "We are facing severe reductions in our capacity to provide a Chapel Hill education," Estroff said.

Estroff and others say Warwick's tuition proposal would be a temporary solution to a much bigger problem -- the state legislature's failure to adequately fund the expanding UNC system.

"We need funds the state is not going to give us," said Kenneth Sams, a classics professor and Faculty Council member. "We're dealing with a situation of reality."

Faculty members say they will have to quickly devise an intelligent strategy to oppose the redistribution proposal.

Estroff said although faculty members and students have yet to collaborate, she hopes the two groups can work together to counter this and similar future proposals.

Estroff also mentioned other tactics she might employ, including speaking at the systemwide Faculty Assembly in March and writing a letter to the BOG on behalf of UNC-CH's Faculty Council.

Although she declined to specify a name, Estroff said she has spoken with a BOG member who is a former member of the UNC-CH Board of Trustees and who has expressed an unfavorable opinion of Warwick's proposal.

Although it is illegal for faculty members to lobby, Estroff said she has encouraged other professors to express their opinions to lawmakers and BOG members, a strategy some say they have already begun.

Others say they are hopeful UNC-CH administrators will take the faculty's side on the issue. "I would hope (Chancellor James Moeser) would oppose this proposal vehemently," said Stephen Weiss, a computer science professor who sat on the Task Force on Tuition that recommended the $400 hike.

After it was unveiled, Moeser spoke out against Warwick's proposal.

But Estroff said the most effective strategy is to convince BOG members that the proposal could unfairly take money away from UNC-CH students. "Especially in these economic times, it's asking too much," she said. "Do the math."

The University Editor can be reached at udesk@unc.edu.