Some words are loaded with politically connotative attributes, as we well know. However, we often find that the terms are made purposefully mis representative of their true definitions in order to lend a sense of credibility and acceptance to an unpopular idea.

‘Tuition deregulation’ is one such evocative term. Deregulation, when taken alone, sounds beneficial to consumers of a hypothetically deregulated environment. Through the removal or reduction of harsh statutes, deregulation is meant to increase efficiency and decrease cost through escalated competition. Amazingly, tuition deregulation has led instead to the opposite!  How was this allowed to transpire?

In 2003, the 78th Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3015 (Tuition Deregulation) into law. This effectively placed gubernatorial political appointees (college system regents) in charge of approving tuition and fee rates at public universities. It marked a transfer of power from those accountable to the public into the hands of those unaccountable to anyone.

Instead of proposing a tax to cover the cost of higher education, Governor
Perry and Texas House Speaker Craddick, along with a majority of the Legislature, decided to deregulate tuition and thus alleviate themselves from a thorny situation.

Fast forward to 2007: The University of Texas at Austin, what many would call the foremost public university in Texas, is increasing tuition again as it has done every fiscal term since 2003 and the advent of deregulation. Students say tuition has increased about 93% from the average 2003 level, while the UT administration contends the percentage is closer to 72%, citing differences in “fees” and actual tuition.

Tuition policy forums were held on campus, though they were a mere formality. To make matters worse, those who owe their full allegiance to the student body have instead associated with the UT administration. The student representatives on the Tuition Policy Advisory Committee, Andrew Solomon (UT Student Body President), Stephen Myers (UT Senate Chairman), Yvette Garza (UT Presidential Undergrad Appointee) and Brian Gatten (UT Grad Student Rep.) joined in a unanimous vote to go forward with the tuition increase.

Additionally, the UT System Regents all happen to have been appointed by Governor Perry, and as evidenced in previous years by their willingness to sign off on tuition increases, they will very likely not break with this pattern.

Despite the seeming futility of protest, a student group made up of unlikely allies on the UT-Austin campus has formed the Tuition Accountability Coalition. Quickly mobilizing a student effort to protest the tuition hikes, the group declared that it would not cease the fight against tuition deregulation until prices were again affordable for all and accountability was restored to the Legislature. The Coalition, comprised of students from all ends of the political spectrum (and everything in between) have rallied to a common cause and vowed solidarity. Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians and Socialists have united to face what none could alone – tuition deregulation supporters in high places.

This Coalition faces tough odds in their campaign to restore accessibility of higher education to Texans. One need only look to those who profit as opposed to those who are being disenfranchised to see the hard road back to fiscal responsibility. Who profits from deregulation? College administrators, politicians and preferred collegiate lenders all have a vested interest in keeping the system as is. Public universities want more money to increase their renown and resources; politicians don’t want to explain tax increases to constituents and lenders most clearly benefit by picking up the slack for students through college loans.

Unfortunately, these transferred costs fall most heavily on lower- and middle-income college students who are the most likely to borrow from lenders and work while in college. Some concessions are made for the lower-income strata, but the sticker price of tuition itself on its face can be a strong deterrent to these students. Taking a full course load while working a 40-hour job to pay for housing, food, clothing and textbooks coupled with the stress of taking out various supplemental loans for tuition, after all, sounds less than enticing.

As we have reviewed the causes and effects, as well as the participants and their separate motives, we have but one final question to answer: What can be done to fix the system? The answer seems apparent. Students must use their voices and votes to persuade the Legislature to re-regulate tuition.  For the Legislature to act, they must fear the consequences of inaction more than those of the proposed action.

The State of Texas must again be held accountable for funding higher education. This will be no easy task as youth are viewed as apathetic and are not a consistently significant voting bloc. Though these trends may change as tuition continues its ascent with no clear end in sight. Perhaps when the students have reached point break, they will organize and lead the way for state funding to shoulder the burden of higher education in Texas.

-Ed Oden