Tuition Increases Don't Limit UNC's Accessibility to Students

In 1999, the Board of Trustees proposed a five-year, $1,500 tuition increase for UNC. And for one day, Morehead Planetarium -- where the BOT voted on the proposal -- turned into the Bastille.

More than 400 students became crazed peasants who stormed the building, waving posters in place of pitchforks and singing slogans about accessibility in place of the "Marseillaise." Revolution was in the air!

Three years later, despite a few small victories, all these efforts have produced is a Waterloo. Since 1999, in-state undergraduate tuition has gone up by $1,385 and out-of-state is up by $3,476. A few weeks ago, in a letter to the editor of this paper, Student Body President Jen Daum conceded that things are only going to get worse: "The unfortunate reality is that tuition is going to increase."

The white flag has been raised. But is this really so bad?

Arguments against tuition increases assume that they rob poor North Carolinians of their right to an education at UNC. This just isn't the case. According to documents from the Office of Admissions, the number of low-income students enrolled at UNC actually has increased since 1999. This has been possible because of financial aid. The University meets 100 percent of the demonstrated need of those who can't afford a UNC education.

While student activists have claimed the contrary, low tuition isn't really a mark of accessibility for low-income students. Instead, it's a sop for the rich. UNC's Office of Institutional Research reported last year that the median income of a family with a student at UNC was $82,827 and that 39.5 percent of UNC families annually made more than $100,000.

Low tuition allows the "let-them-eat-cake" crowd to subsidize the education of their children with tax revenue generated from poor families who have little hope of ever sending their kids to UNC. Wealthy families can and should contribute more for their children's education by paying higher tuition.

Some argue that by raising tuition, we relieve the General Assembly of its responsibility to adequately fund our University.

However, perhaps it's better to raise tuition and allow Raleigh to devote some of its limited resources elsewhere. After all, what's the best way to make UNC more accessible? Should we continue to subsidize low tuition for loaded frat boys, or should we put more money into our inner-city and rural schools that are inadequately preparing students to come here?

While the time to fight tuition increases might be over, there are still battles that remain to be fought. Don't beat your swords into plowshares quite yet.

While UNC's financial aid program is among the best in the nation, more can still be done. Fortunately, the University does a good job keeping post-graduation indebtedness manageable. Only 35 percent of need at UNC is met through loans, compared to the national average of 53 percent. Still, the average student on financial aid leaves Chapel Hill with a debt of $11,000.

While this is again low compared to the national average, we should continue reducing the importance of loans in our financial aid packages.

More importantly, a financial aid system that the disadvantaged don't understand is useless. Many poor North Carolinians mistakenly believe that an education at UNC is out of their reach.

Student-run programs like North Carolina Students for Educational Access that publicize UNC's accessibility in low-income high schools should be given University support. It's time to recruit poor students from Cherokee County as aggressively as students from Chicago with a 1500 SAT score.

Although we've raised the white flag, we've not yet negotiated the terms of the peace. Let's bring the same revolutionary fervor to these negotiations that we brought to the war -- the accessibility of the university depends on it.

E-mail Jim Doggett at jdoggett@email.unc.edu.