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