Legislative Lunacy
The News and Observer got a first cut on what may prove to be yet another "love them to death" legislative initiative for UNC minority institutions. (NC GAP is the other, but more on that elsewhere, and more on the combination of attacks on HMI's in yet another post)
"Lower tuition may be coming to some UNC campuses" (6 Feb 16) tells the story of a legislative proposal to cut tuition costs at some of the most distressed HMI's, including ECSU, WSSU, UNCP, and FSU. The number being floated – $500 a year – is a terrific bargain by any measure.
But don't get sucked in too quickly. What isn't discussed in the article but can be discerned by reading carefully and filling in between the lines is that this proposal may be much more costly to the people of this state than may be at first apparent.
Quite simply, the political math on this one doesn't quite add up. Here are the relevant variables:
1. Consider the source. This is Phil Berger's proposal, and it appears to have the support of Craig Horn (among a few others, no doubt). It needs to be borne in mind that Phil Berger has made a political career out of cutting access to public goods, and making it as difficult as possible for public institutions he does not like to operate. The UNC HMI's are high on that list.
Craig Horn is quoted in the article as saying that he wants to be "creative in how to sustain these really important institutions," but what Stancill neglected to include was Horn's comment at the 21 Jan 16 BOG meeting that the education offered at the HMI's was "low quality" and that many HMI students were "not prepared."
I am not fond of genetic critiques, but in this case I think the source matters a lot about the intent -- and it isn't about access or increasing opportunities for minorities.
2. Who knew? This question makes things especially stinky. What is clear from the article is that the Chancellors of the affected institutions did not know. That is inexplicable -- unless of course these plans would have met resistance from the HMI Chancellors. Chancellor Anderson's comments (and it wouldn't be surprising if Anderson is fronting for the other HMI Chancellors) point directly to that conclusion. Note, too that this also suggests an adversarial attitude toward the Chancellors on the part of the legislative leadership).
Then there is the line that "officials were tight-lipped." Read aright, this implies that GA leadership was caught unaware (that's unlikely) or that they are unhappy with the proposal and are being politic in their silence (that's much more likely)
Finally, Interim BOG Chair Lou Bissett refused to discuss the details, but he had plenty to say about all of the other options that might be on the table to help UNC institutions succeed. Here's what that one probably means: Bissett got bushwhacked by the legislature and some of the BOG members who are in the pockets of legislative radicals. Bissett is trying to acknowledge the threat from Raleigh while also reassuring the University community that this is not a done deal. Unfortunately, Bissette is going to find out that the Berger Boys can be real bullies, and they will readily resort to legislative coercion if they don't get their way.
3. Add it up: The intended appearance of this proposal is to boost enrollment in the distressed HMI's; the intended (or even unintended) effect will be to transform some of the minority institutions into regional institutions without any particular identity.
Watch this space: the real back story of this false magnanimity should become very clear over the next few weeks.
"Lower tuition may be coming to some UNC campuses" (6 Feb 16) tells the story of a legislative proposal to cut tuition costs at some of the most distressed HMI's, including ECSU, WSSU, UNCP, and FSU. The number being floated – $500 a year – is a terrific bargain by any measure.
But don't get sucked in too quickly. What isn't discussed in the article but can be discerned by reading carefully and filling in between the lines is that this proposal may be much more costly to the people of this state than may be at first apparent.
Quite simply, the political math on this one doesn't quite add up. Here are the relevant variables:
1. Consider the source. This is Phil Berger's proposal, and it appears to have the support of Craig Horn (among a few others, no doubt). It needs to be borne in mind that Phil Berger has made a political career out of cutting access to public goods, and making it as difficult as possible for public institutions he does not like to operate. The UNC HMI's are high on that list.
Craig Horn is quoted in the article as saying that he wants to be "creative in how to sustain these really important institutions," but what Stancill neglected to include was Horn's comment at the 21 Jan 16 BOG meeting that the education offered at the HMI's was "low quality" and that many HMI students were "not prepared."
I am not fond of genetic critiques, but in this case I think the source matters a lot about the intent -- and it isn't about access or increasing opportunities for minorities.
2. Who knew? This question makes things especially stinky. What is clear from the article is that the Chancellors of the affected institutions did not know. That is inexplicable -- unless of course these plans would have met resistance from the HMI Chancellors. Chancellor Anderson's comments (and it wouldn't be surprising if Anderson is fronting for the other HMI Chancellors) point directly to that conclusion. Note, too that this also suggests an adversarial attitude toward the Chancellors on the part of the legislative leadership).
Then there is the line that "officials were tight-lipped." Read aright, this implies that GA leadership was caught unaware (that's unlikely) or that they are unhappy with the proposal and are being politic in their silence (that's much more likely)
Finally, Interim BOG Chair Lou Bissett refused to discuss the details, but he had plenty to say about all of the other options that might be on the table to help UNC institutions succeed. Here's what that one probably means: Bissett got bushwhacked by the legislature and some of the BOG members who are in the pockets of legislative radicals. Bissett is trying to acknowledge the threat from Raleigh while also reassuring the University community that this is not a done deal. Unfortunately, Bissette is going to find out that the Berger Boys can be real bullies, and they will readily resort to legislative coercion if they don't get their way.
3. Add it up: The intended appearance of this proposal is to boost enrollment in the distressed HMI's; the intended (or even unintended) effect will be to transform some of the minority institutions into regional institutions without any particular identity.
Watch this space: the real back story of this false magnanimity should become very clear over the next few weeks.
