By Justin Hsieh
The future of tuition and fee increases in the University of California (UC) school system remains uncertain after UC regents delayed a vote on the proposed plans and expressed divided opinions at a San Francisco meeting last month.
The regents were scheduled to vote on Jan. 22 on two plans that could have raised tuition and fees across the UC’s ten campuses for the next five years. One plan would set an annual increase in tuition and fees for all students by the cost of inflation, around 2.8% or $348 in 2020-2021, in addition to an $840 increase in supplemental tuition for nonresident undergraduates. The second plan would raise tuition and fees for each incoming class but keep costs flat for six years, a 4.8% or $606 increase in 2020-2021, while freezing current students’ tuition and increasing nonresidents’ supplemental tuition by $1,440.
While the vote was delayed to an unspecified later date amidst concerns from students and the governor of California, the regents did hold a two-hour discussion on the plans, including comments from student representatives, that highlighted their divided perspectives.
Proponents of the plans, such as Board Chairman John A. Pérez and Regent Lark Park, cited a need to improve financial aid and address university needs, including overcrowded classes, graduation rates and achievement gaps, faculty and staff salary gaps, critical infrastructure repairs and student mental health services. They also pointed out that the students with most financial need would benefit the most from increased financial aid and improved services.
“Adjustments to these charges would generate additional funding for student financial aid that would reduce the net cost of attendance for more than one-half of UC California resident undergraduates,” read the executive summary released by the Office of UC President Janet Napolitano. “These adjustments would also provide UC campuses with critical resources to avoid the erosion in the quality of a UC education that would otherwise result if the University were to rely solely on available funding from the State and other sources.”
The proposals came as the university projected a $250 million budget shortfall for the 2020-2021 school year, which could grow to $734 million in five years in the absence of additional funding. Adopting one of the plans, according to Napolitano, would help address these needs and provide UC community members a predictable timeline of revenue and cost changes.
“[Adopting a plan would allow] prospective UC students [to] make informed enrollment decisions, continuing students [to] know what level of tuition and fees to expect and campuses [to] prepare to provide the educational opportunities, academic support, financial aid, and student services needed to sustain the University’s unparalleled track record of access, affordability, and academic excellence.”
Others, however, were not as supportive of the tuition increases. A day before the regents met to discuss the plan, California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed his opposition to the plans. Newsom, who opposed tuition hikes while previously serving on the UC Board of Regents as California’s lieutenant governor, included a 5.8% ($217.7 million) increase in permanent funding as well as $56 million in one-time funds for the UC system in the 2020-2021 budget he released twelve days before the meeting.
“Given the major increase in higher education funding provided in last year’s budget and the similar increase proposed by Governor Newsom for next year’s budget, he believes that the proposed tuition increase is unwarranted, bad for students and inconsistent with our college affordability goals,” spokesman Jesse Melgar said.
Similarly, Regent Sherry Lansing called on the board to consider pursuing further dialogue with Newsom before voting on the plans, especially considering the governor’s budgetary contribution and stated opposition.
“It just seems to me counterintuitive to move without more dialogue,” “Lansing said. “This is one of the most important and difficult decisions we have to make.”
California Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, citing a statewide “affordability crisis,” agreed. Kounalakis promised to push for more funding for the university from the state, whose contribution to the UC core budget has dropped from 84% in 1990 to 42% in the current school year. Kounalakis also expressed concern over UC spending, an issue highlighted by other opponents of the plans.
The plans faced opposition from students, who in remarks to the regents said the tuition increases would harm students who do not benefit from financial aid, including students with high medical expenses, LGBTQ students whose parents refuse to pay for their tuition, and out of state students.
“We as an organization do not support making college more affordable for some students by making it more expensive for others,” UC Student Association (UCSA) President Varsha Sarveshwar said.
Savreshwar and the UCSA protested the originally scheduled Jan. 22 vote on the plans when it was first announced, citing a change from a one-year to a five-year tuition increase about which they had not been notified. After the UCSA informed the regents that holding the vote would violate a 2012 law requiring the University to provide 10 days of prior public notice for systemwide changes to student fees (the plans were posted seven days prior to the meeting), the regents delayed the vote.
“We understand and take seriously the concerns by students who have requested more time to consider the proposed plans and welcome ongoing productive conversations with them,” UC spokeswoman Claire Doan said.
Twenty percent of the FVHS graduating class of 2019 attended one of the University’s campuses.
