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