Every year, it seems, a student body president walks into South Building with a compelling case for a tuition plan softening the blow to students. Every year, administrators nod their heads and pat the student on the back before inevitably crushing the proposal under the weight of their own competing plan.
On Monday, the task force engaged in this ritual yet again, praising Student Body President Mary Cooper’s plan before ultimately approving Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Bruce Carney’s proposal to raise in-state tuition by 15.6 percent and out-of-state tuition by 6.5 percent — but not without one Board of Trustees member “vehemently” opposing it and another fearing that it was too “modest.”
Even with these vehement reservations, trustee Sallie Shuping-Russell said Tuesday that she would support the proposal. But before she and the board give this proposal its rubber stamp of approval, she must prove that her praise for Cooper’s plan Monday doesn’t become lip service today. As chairwoman of the board’s budget, audit and finance committee, she must consider incorporating elements of Cooper’s plan into Carney’s and minimize the erosion of UNC’s status as an accessible university “of the people.”
Carney’s proposal calls for lifting the salary freeze and providing faculty a 4 percent raise next year. It’s a worthy goal, designed to retain faculty he says are defecting at a disturbing rate. But because UNC faculty are public employees, any raises would be contingent upon the N.C. General Assembly’s approval, making this facet of the plan tenuous at best.
Cooper’s plan called for a 7 percent faculty raise by 2014, with a 1.56 percent raise next year. This approach could prove more palatable for the state and stands to reduce the added burden students will bear next year.
Given, faculty have shared a great deal of the pain. With consecutive years of budget cuts and a pay freeze, they’ve seen their class sizes grow while their salaries have been stagnant.
But they should embrace Cooper’s plan as a show of good faith, one that calls for more sacrifice for the sake of students and the University’s contract with the state to remain as affordable as possible.
In fairness, Cooper did not do herself any favors by waiting until the last minute to finalize her tuition plan. As Shuping-Russell said Monday and again Tuesday, the plan would have stood more of a chance had it arrived in her email inbox sooner than the morning of the task force’s final meeting.
But at 2 p.m. today, that shouldn’t be an excuse to dismiss Cooper’s plan. Shuping-Russell has said she was intrigued by Cooper’s inventive approach of charging incoming in-state students a “catch up” supplement to make up for budgetary gaps, while also making tuition increases predictable.
Carney, who described Cooper’s plan as a “remarkable achievement,” attributed its tardiness to its thoroughness. Shuping-Russell should reflect on her own praise and not discard the proposal for its late arrival.
