4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, July 25, 2005
420 MAYNARD STREET
ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 STEPHANIE WRIGHT
tothedaily@michigandaily.com Editor in Chief
DONN M. FRESARD
Editorial Page Editor
4
p EDITED AND MANAGED BY
STUDENTS AT THEB Unless otheise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not
SINCE 1890 necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
Something had to give
Granholm misses link between funding cuts
and tuition increases
Down but not out
Opponents should gear up now to defeat MCRI
It is troubling that, three years after
her election, Gov. Jennifer Gran-
holm still lacks a firm grasp on the
concept of cause and effect - repeat-
edly slashing state funding does indeed
force universities to raise tuition rates.
Should the state Legislature follow
Granholm's budget recommendation,
the past three years will have brought
nearly $50 million in cuts to the Univer-
sity's state appropriations. Faced with a
choice between sacrificing the quality of
education and raising tuition rates, the
University's Board of Regents unani-
mously approved a 12.3-percent in-state
tuition increase Thursday. Rather than
understanding that the increase was a
necessary response to recurring cuts in
state funding, Granholm reacted to the
announcement with harsh criticism and
nafvely called on universities statewide
to maintain tuition increases at the
rate of inflation. Whether her position
is motivated by genuine incompetence
or political posturing, it is counterpro-
ductive to the goal of garnering public
support for greater investment in higher
education.
Just as the University has not been
alone in enduring heavy cuts in state
funding, it is not the only university in
the state to announce staggering tuition
increases. So far, all state universities
have approved increases above 7 per-
cent for the coming year, and Central
Michigan University topped the list,
raising tuition by 19 percent for new
students. Granholm rightly wants to
double the number of college graduates
in Michigan, but it is difficult to imagine
how this will be possible with continu-
al funding cuts that leave universities
scrambling to make ends meet.
Granholm called the recent tuition
increases "unacceptably high," and
critics have expressed fears that the
higher prices will make higher educa-
tion less accessible to students. This
concern may be somewhat overblown,
given that this year the University is
increasing its financial aid budget by
14.5 percent and expanding need-based
grant aid to in-state students by more
than 28 percent. As University Provost
Paul Courant said, the policy of using
tuition increases to boost financial aid
has "some of the same flavor of a pro-
gressive tax system," and if all goes
according to plan, families earning the
median income and under would not be
harmed by the tuition increases.
ike the boss who blames employ-
ees for her own mistakes, Gran-
holm is overlooking her influence
on the massive state appropriations
cuts that have strangled higher educa-
tion budgets in Michigan. Either she
genuinely fails to recognize her own
role in the statewide tuition increases,
or she is deceptively trying to shift the
blame from the state government to
the universities' administrations. After
Granholm fleeced the universities last
March by breaking a promise to pro-
tect them from further cuts, adminis-
trators have little reason to listen to her
suggestions. And in the wake of nearly
$80 million in internal budget cuts over
the past three years, further reductions
may not be an option. Even the fiscally
conservative Republican regents voted
in favor of the tuition increases, under-
standing that the University is out of
breathing room if it plans to preserve
its reputation and quality.
The Detroit Free Press and the Detroit
News have backed Granholm's shame-
less posturing in recent editorials, cit-
ing the $11 million earmarked for new
initiatives like the Detroit Center as
unnecessary in times of such serious
financial difficulties. But they fail to
recognize that should the University
throw itself into financial lockdown in
order to cut costs, it will fall behind
its competitors - most of which are
raising tuition at a higher rate than the
University is - and risk losing the best
faculty and students to private and elite
public universities that are willing to
invest in innovation and new initia-
tives. If the state hopes to attract new
industries and double its number of col-
lege graduates over the next decade, it
cannot afford to let its best university
drop out of competition with the likes
of Northwestern, Stanford and the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania.
This year's tuition increase may alle-
viate some of the stress on the Univer-
sity's budget for now, but unless the
state restructures the way it funds high-
er education, these problems will only
worsen next year. University funding is
allocated through the state's discretion-
ary fund, and consequently it is one of
the first areas to be cut when state rev-
enues decline. If Granholm works with
the state Legislature to find a way to
maintain or increase higher education
funding, universities will not have to
implement further double-digit tuition
increases anytime soon. In times of
high unemployment and falling state
revenues, investing in higher education,
as Granholm purports to recognize, is
the state's best bet for a prosperous
future. But should this investment con-
tinue to come in the form of rhetorical
lip service, Granholm will only further
alienate herself from the administrators
who could be her closest allies in revi-
talizing Michigan's economy. As the
governor unwisely calls on administra-
tors to further cut out "fat," she must
realize that a belt can only be tightened
so much before it cuts off blood flow.
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative
came under fire last week, facing alle-
gations that deception was part of a
strategy to obtain signatures on a petition that
would place the anti-affirmative action legis-
lation in front of voters in the November 2006
election. The proposal in question would ban
the use of race and gender considerations in
situations such as government hiring and uni-
versity admissions. The proposal was stalled
Tuesday when the Board of State Canvass-
ers refused to approve the legislation until
further investigation is undertaken. Although
it is unlikely that these charges will block
the advancement of MCRI's agenda, the state
Legislature should promptly follow through
with a complete investigation.
Claims that canvassers tricked black vot-
ers into signing the petition by telling them
the amendment would help secure the con-
tinuation of affirmative action programs have
prompted debate over the validity of many of
the petitions. MCRI needed only 317,757 sig-
natures to get the proposal on the 2006 ballot.
Opponents say 122 signatures appeared ques-
tionable in the initial random sample of 500,
suggesting that up to 25 percent of all sig-
natures collected might have been obtained
inappropriately. Because MCRI collected
over 500,000 signatures, it seems unlikely
that fraud would discount enough signatures
to stop the proposal from appearing before
voters next year.
Still, larger samples should be evaluated,
and a complete investigation needs to be
conducted to illuminate the extent to which
MCRI canvassers duped Michigan residents
into signing the petition. It will be important
to determine whether a select number of inde-
pendent canvassers covertly sought signatures
with improper solicitations or whether these
tactics were sanctioned by MCRI.
Even if these allegations of fraud are found
to be true, however, the unfortunate reality
is that MCRI - which, petition-gathering
techniques aside, is fundamentally decep-
tive in name and language - will most
likely appear on next year's state ballot.
Public opinion on the issue seems to be
leaning in MCRI's favor, but it fluctuates
wildly in surveys based on the wording of
the questions; most state residents know too
little about its probable effects to form a
fixed opinion on it. This state of ambigu-
ity is what MCRI's backers are hoping to
exploit in next year's election. Opponents
should focus their efforts now on educat-
ing the public about MCRI and the impact
it would have on affirmative action. As
November 2006 approaches, collaboration
and organization will be crucial in wag-
ing an effective campaign against MCRI.
Student leaders united with the anti-MCRI
group One United Michigan last week in
Detroit to protest the initiative; collabora-
tion between such groups will be crucial to
educate the public about the negative effects
of the proposal. The voices of student lead-
ers and university administrators concerned
with preserving affirmative action will be
influential in increasing public awareness
and strengthening support to defeat the ban,
and they should not wait for official certifi-
cation from the board to take action.
I
4
The thumbs have it
Ann
Arbor Art
Fair(s)
Paul
Courant
Ann
Arbor City
Council
Stuart
Wagner
A yuppie tourist's delight. Captive Ann Arborites bore
witness last week to a cornucopia of "art" that ranged in
style from tasteless to generic, sacrificing their usual park-
ing spots for four days of photoshopped woodland-critter
prints, various meats-on-stick and overpriced handicrafts.
Having finished his work on next year's budget, Courant
will step down as provost at the end of next month. With
his encyclopedic knowledge of the Michigan economy,
his committment to academic excellence in the face of
funding cuts and his tasteful diamond earring, he'll al-
ways be our hip-hop provost.
Following its typical yearly pattern, the council rushed
to pass an anti-student parking ordinance last week be-
fore students could come back to campus in the fall. Stu-
dents left with no place to park might consider Christ
Easthope (D-5th Ward)'s front lawn.
Like the Dauphin to King Henry V, Wagner's gift of ear-
plugs to the City Council hit a little too close to home.
Thank you, Stu, for your efforts to "engage" those who
would steal our couches and monopolize our streets.
4