From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!arnold
Newsgroups: net.college
Title: Re: Re: U.C. Boycott of Classes 2/16 - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.912
Posted: Sat Feb 19 17:39:07 1983
Received: Sun Feb 20 07:37:44 1983

I think another point has been lost in the discussion on the $100 fee
increase at U. of California.  Many people have made comments on how
little it costs compared to their tuition.  What they don't understand
is that this is not tuition.  Tuition is forbidden by the state
constitution, which set up the University to provide a \free/
education for the citizens of the state.

This sounds nit-picky, but is a crucial difference.  The philosophy
upon which the state university system was founded was that higher
education of its citizens was beneficial to the state as a whole,
and that therefore the state should educate all the highest qualified
people in the state, regardless of ability to pay.

Fees were introduced during the Regan administration (his gubernatorial
one, to be precise) not as tuition, but to suppots "non-educational"
activities, such as the bureaucracy which supports classes student
government, the art museum, the band, intramural sports, etc.  These
were deemed to be peripheral to education, and thus fees could be
assesed for them.

What all this leads to is that if the concept of public benefit
upon which the public university system was founded is still valid
(and I would maintain it is), then the problem of escalating fees
is quite real.  It would once again make access to higher education
based on ability to pay (although, admittedly, with what financial
aid is let these days, some very poor people could get in).  This
means that some individuals who are highly qualified and motivated
will not be able to be educated.  This would, I believe, be a
great loss not only to the individuals most directly concerned, but
to all of us who live in the society which has ceased to look upon
education as a benefit to all.

		Ken