41 Monday, June 30, 2008 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com the IWICbigan Dailu Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. ? 420 Maynard St. eAnn Abor, MI 48109 an;,nrtothedaily@umich.edu Loaded words Supreme Court opens new debate on guns EMMARIE HUETTEMAN EDITOR IN CHIEF GARY GRACA MANAGING EDITOR KATE TRUESDELL EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily'seditorial board. Allsother signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Rat isin through the roof Latest tuition increase of questionable necessity t's that time of the year again, the time when students receive their annual gift from the Board of Regents: a tuition hike. Given inflation, it's an unfortunate real- ity that tuition may need to be raised over time. But what is uncertain is if the rate of increase over the past few years has been justified. Unfortunately, the way in which this hike was approved didn't allow this question to be raised. The lack of transparency from the University and the arbitrariness of the numbers justifying this spike in cost leave several questions to be answered. It took 217 years, but the U.S. Supreme Court finally made a decision Thursday about what the ambiguous nightmare we call the Second Amendment means. Yes, owning a gun is an individual right. But, no, your right to pack heat isn't abso- lute, especially if you want to own an Uzi. The wording of the Second Amendment may be a jumbled mess, but the Supreme Court's decision should silence the fringe voices in this debate and motivate our country to address the prevalence of gun violence in our country and on our campuses. At the heart of the court's 5- 4 decision last week was the question of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." One hundred and fifty-four pages later, the court's five con- servatives adamantly ruled that the amendment was meant to protect each person's individual right to own a gun with some to-be-determined qualifica- tions. The court's four liberals adamantly ruled that those five guys pulled their conclusion out of thin air. Even for a divided court, the opinions were sur- prising in their inability to con- cede hardly any points to the other side. Each side had dug its heels in and wasn't budging. Not surprisingly, the court's polarization mirrored the divide that has crippled our ability to control gun violence in our country. Roughly 30,000 Amer- icans die each year because of guns, and dozens die in trage- dies across the country at places like Virginia Tech and North- ern Illinois University. But still, Americans haven't been able to agree that reasonable regu- lations like the federal ban on assault weapons are legal. The court may have incor- rectly stretched the Second Amendment's meaning Thurs- day, but it also opened up an opportunity. Undoubtedly, gun-control laws across the country will be challenged in the wake of this decision. But now, the courts can clarify that reasonable gun restrictions that keep guns off the black market, require background checks for gun ownership and require gun registration are legal and necessary. By deciding the most con- tentious point in the debate, the court gave us a free pass to move on to points of agreement. It's only been 217 years in the making. 4 First of all, the hike was cal- culated based on an assumed 2-percent increase in state funding for the University. But at the time, the increase being debated in the state's legislature was between 2.8 percent and 3 percent. By underestimating state aid in its model, the Uni- versity stood to overestimate the amount tuition really need- ed to be raised. This wouldn't be so concerning if, like many universities did last year, unex- pected state funding was paid back to students through reim- bursements. But unfortunately, the University wasn't among the ranks of schools that did that. It's also questionable how necessary some of the costs the University has used to justify this raise are. According to the University, the need for higher tuition is derived from major expense increases like rising energy prices, improving fac- ulty pay, hiring 100 new junior faculty members and updat- ing technology. These are all legitimate costs for a premier research institution. But it's questionable if things like hir- ing new faculty at the expense of students should be a priority when price indexes are soaring across the board and it's never been more expensive to earn a college degree. And that's important to con- sider. At this point, it's clich6 to say that knowledge is power. But it's still true - a knowledge- based economy is essential to addressing the economic woes of both the state and the nation. That means that now more than ever it's necessary to prioritize expenses and trim superfluous spending, raisingtuition as alast resort. Because the most impor- tant priority should always be the student. There must be a balance between a desire to expand and improve the University and bur- deningstudents with more debts than they can bear. Next year, in-state students will be pay- ing 5.6 percent more than last year. That may not sound so bad - until you consider that over four years, tuition has increased a whopping 34.6 percent. That kind of increase is not only exponentially problematic in the context of the state's flailing economy, but it's also the kind of increase for which students can't reasonably prepare. The Regents contendthatthey are taking measures to soften the blow of this hike by increas- ing financial aid by 10.8 percent. But put in real monetary terms, that increase equates to only $8.5 million - a very small drop in the bucket. In reality, this increase does little to fix a much broader problem. But it isn't just the big price tag on a University education that's alarming - the way it was approved is upsetting as well. The hike was approved at the Regents meeting two weeks ago without a discussion. That's unacceptable; considering the effect this decision will have on students, open debate was abso- lutely necessary. Discussion could have allowed the Regents to address these issues and explain to the students why raising tuition was necessary and what they plan on doing to minimize further increases in the future. A press release shouldn't replace a real dialogue about these issues, but that's exactly what happened. And what that means is that instead of getting answers to these questions, students have been left in the dark. 4 ARIELA STEIF E-MAIL STEIF AT ASTEIF@UMICH.EDU I - GHANE 7- \ - S-,,,-.. \ I s - 4 4