OPINION
Page 6 Friday, June 19, 1987 The Michigan Daily
4
97 Years of Editorial Freedom
No. 7S
Unsigned editorials represent the majority views of the Daily's
Editorial Board. Cartoons and signed editorials do not
necessarily reflect the Daily's opinion.
Out of state mind
A BILL PENDING in the state
legislature would direct the
University to limit the number of
out-of-state students at Michigan,
in order to permit more in-state
students to attend. The mechanism
of coersion would be the witholding
of appropriation funds if out-of-
state enrollment rose too high. The
bill accurately reflects a concern
many Michigan residents share: that
the higher the out-of-state enroll -
ment is, the less slots will be
available for in-state students. This
is particularly vexing, since Mich -
igan residents have, through their
tax dollars, supported the Uni -
versity for years.
At $4172 per year, out-of-state
tuition represents a significant
source of income to the University.
Since the cost of educating a
Michigander is the same as that for
an out-of-stater, the University has
an economic incentive to attract and
accept out-of-staters, who pay
higher tuition.
Indeed, the University does
exploit the higher "profit margin"
made from out-of-state students.
When calculating its budget, the
University decides what percentage
of out-of-state students it will need
to accept in order to produce suffi -
cient tuition income. Based upon
this calculation, the University
decides the number of out-of-state
students it will admit for the
following year. Over the last
decade, University administrators
have consciously raised the
percentage of out-of-state students
to raise greater revenues. By 1987,
the out-of-state students had reached
37.5 percent of the population.
In addition, under growing
pressures to freeze in-state tuition,
administrators have increased out-
of-state tuition inordinately to
artificially supress the costs to
Michigan residents. For matters of
comparison, at Ohio State
University-Columbus there is a
difference of $3246 between in-state
and out-of-state tuition; at
University of California-Berkeley,
$4290; and at University of
Michigan-Ann Arbor, $5734. The
Michigan figure is based on 1986-
1987 tuition, while the figures for
other universites are not; thus, the
discrepencies in Michigan will
likely grow in the coming year.
There is no question that those
who have not financially supported
the University with their tax dollars
should pay more for the opport -
unity to attend. Unfortunately,
efforts to decrease the number of
out-of-state students will eliminate
some of the subsidization that
bloated out-of-state tuition provides
to Michigan residents. As a result,
more in-state students could attend,
but each at a dearer price. Of course,
tuition at Michigan is already
unreasonably high, and should be
reduced for both in and out-of-state
students.
It is hoped that University
adminstrators will refrain from
profiteering and reduce the number
of out-of-state students accepted.
Failing than, legislators could
calculate the extra tuition reaped by
increasing the out-of-state popula -
tion and subtract that amount from
Michigan's appropriation. Such a
system would nullify the Univers -
ity's financial gain from increasing
the out-of-state ranks. This would
allow qualified students equal
access, whether in-state or out-of-
state, and may help the University
to concentrate more on teaching,
which should be its primary
objective.
Unfortunately, administrators
seem concerned more with attract -
ing accomplished students - and
prestige - rather than teaching
willing students. Admission "stand -
ards" are continually elevated in an
effort to insure that only the "cream
of the crop" is accepted. It is often
claimed that in order to compete
with Ivy League schools, the
University must attract high-caliber
students from all states. But is
education of students, with an em -
phasis on Michiganders, or comp -
etition with private institutions the
reason for publicly-funded Michi -
gan's existance? Are rigorous
admission "standards" the measure
of the University's improvement?
Should not the measure of success
be the quality of education offered
to accepted students? These are
questions central to the determina -
tion of what constitutes the Uni -
versity's mission and achievement.
IT A
exerc
Stude
assert
M
$8.37
$2.9-
incre
from
elect
has r
be ap
TI
prop(
affili
Servi
Unio
Rese
(PIR
TI
fire f
as th
The
attem
In
chall
had
with
the r
not I
all th
held
over
chall
know
must
studs
igeni
petit
lacki
this
petit
PIRG
TI
Taxation with representation
PPEARS that the regents may funding, which traditionally came It was one of the ironies
ise their power over Michigan through the University based on an confrontation that the regen
tnt Assembly (MSA) funds to voluntary $1.56 student surcharge. expressing political biases u
t their political biases. In this past March's MSA guise of transcending politic
SA has petitioned for a fee of elections, 71 percent of the voting political questioning in the
per student, an increase of students were in favor of continuing of discussions about MSA
7 over last year. This fee the negative check-off system. clearly implied that the reg
ase received majority support Again, the students demonstrated considering withholding ft
students in the last MSA their support of PIRGIM and asked debilitate programs whic
ions. Yet, the administration MSA to aid them. oppose. Regent Baker, wit]
ecommended that a $7.00 fee Likewise, increased funding for acteristic tactlessness, wa
proved. Student Legal Services and the Ann clear about this intent. Bake
he substantial fee increase was Arbor Tenants Union received MSA president Ken Weii
osed in part to fund MSA majority support from students in much funding MSA woul
ate groups Student Legal the MSA elections. They, like without PIRGIM. For his
ices, the Ann Arbor Tenants PIRGIM, have met with regental ness, Baker most honestly e
n, and the Public Interest disfavor. At yesterday's regent ed what was on the minds(
arch Group In Michigan meeting, regent Deane Baker regents: the politically-me
GIM). questioned the Ann Arbor Tenant dissection and defunding of I
hese groups have come under Union's stand on rent control.
rom the regents and MSA has, Baker is a landlord in Ann Arbor Such a course of ac
eir sponsor, become the target. and has a definite interest in outrageous and should notf
regents have historically preventing rent control. Baker was considered. Michigan's s
ipted to defund PIRGIM. informed that Tenant Union had no have, in effect, voted
April, 1986 the regents stated political position on rent themselves to fund PI
enged PIRGIM to prove that it control, but that Student Legal Student Legal Services,a
student support. PIRGIM deals Services actively advocated such Ann Arbor Tenant Unioi
many controversial issues and measures. Baker made clear his nothing short of arrogant
egents felt that PIRGIM could opposition to such activity. regents to use their illeg
possibly represent students in Regent Paul Brown questioned veto power to deny studs
ese areas. In response PIRGIM the right of these university-funded convenient mechanism of
a petition drive which garnered groups to lobby politically. which they have chosen.l
17,000 signatures. The regents Spokespeople for the questioned insult, in itself, that studen
enged that the students did not groups pointed out that non-profit submit to regental scrutin
what they were signing. One organizations such as their own they choose to spend the
either conclude that 17,000 must remain non-partisan, not money. The regents hav
ents are so lacking in intell - apolitical. To serve students, been overly concerned wit
:e as to misunderstand a simple PIRGIM, Student Legal Services, students money. The orgai
on to that the regentseareand the Ann Arbor Tenants Union of the present funding sy
go intelligence for begentsrg often find it necessary to seek clearly designed to hamper
to in the case. Clearly the potical reforms. They may have funding of programs which
ion drive demonstrated that also pointed out that the University regental interests. The oper
itself engages in political lobbying this system illustrates tI
JIM has student support. and, like the other organizations, its regents are not worthy t
he regents cut off PIRGIM's functioning, by nature, is political. such arbitrary power.
s of the
its were
nder the
:s. Such
context
funding
ents are
unds to
:h they
h char -
as most
er asked
ne how
ld need
blunt -
xpress -
of other
otivated
MSA.
tion is
even be
tudents
to tax
RGIM,
and the
n. It is
for the
itimate
nts the
funding
It is an
its must
y when
ir own
e never
saving
nization
stem is
student
oppose
ation of
hat the
o weild
LETTERS:
To the Daily:
Regarding the Daily's June 5
article,'"'U' Challenges Divestment
Bill," several points need to be
clarified. The University claims to
have $125,000 invested in
companies doing business in South
Africa, rather than $500,000
because IBM and GM have
"withdrawn their operations." IBM
and GM claim to have withdrawn
their operations, but in fact, this is
not the case. The local subsidiaries
have bought the plants, but only
with the condition that the
corporation may buy back the plant
when the political climate makes it
possible. In addition, GM and IBM
are still making profits from the
local subsidiaries by supplying
partso tmaintain existing plants
and products.
It is important not to be fooled
by the cosmetic changes IBM and
GM are making. We must uphold
our standards and not give in, by
agreeing that these companies have
made any significant changes.
The issue is not one of "political
action to attempt to control the
activities of the University" as
regent Baker claims, but rather a set
of moral standards to which the
University, as a public insititition,
should have unilaterally complied
with a long time ago.
As far as the autonomy issue
goes, the divestment issue is much
more important. It concerns human
rights and human lives. There
should be no question which
direction the University takes. If
the Regents truly oppose apartheid,
as regent Baker claims, then
whether $500,000, $125,000, or
even $10 - any amount is too
much. The Univeristy should
divest every dollar which is
supporting the white South African
regime.
-Pam Nadasen
Free South Africa
Coordinating Committee
June 16
The Daily welcomes letters from its
readers. Bringing in letters on personal
computer disk is the fastest way to publish
a letter in the Daily. Readers who can not
bring their letters in on disk should include
their phone numbers for verification.Call
747-2814 for details.
4