|
Conversation should be about breaking a promise |
|
|
|
|
Written by Byron Williams
|
|
Sunday, 28 November 2010 |
 The California Supreme Court ruled this week that students who are in the country illegally are eligible for in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities in California.
The California Supreme Court unanimously upheld a state law that says any student -- regardless of immigration status -- can qualify for in-state tuition rates as long as he or she has attended a California high school for a minimum of three years and graduated.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by U.S. citizens upset that they must pay higher, out-of-state tuition rates while illegal immigrant students in California pay in-state tuition rates.
While this will be certainly red meat de jour for right-wing talk show radio, the boisterous emotional rants will serve only to mask the real problem that underlies this debate.
Illegal immigration is difficult to debate and to engage honestly and judiciously. It is usually hampered by unrealistic conversation that has no room for nuance, but more than a hint of xenophobia.
There is a part of this discourse that still clings to the grainy images from the Proposition 187 ad in 1994. It wouldn't surprise me to see some draconian reactionary measure on the 2012 ballot in response to the court's recent ruling.
It can't sit well with those who have made illegal immigration their cause célèbre to read the words of one of the court's more conservative justices, Ming W. Chin opine: "It cannot be the case that states may never give a benefit to unlawful aliens without giving the same benefit to all American citizens."
Is this an issue of fairness? Absolutely! But the fairness issue has more to do with the promise California made to past generations that it is no longer able to maintain.
Financial pressures have forced California schools to recruit the best and brightest minds available from outside the state. For example, each nonresident student attending a UC school carries a $23,000 annual tuition price tag -- roughly twice the tuition for in-state students.
A record number of out-of-state and international students enrolled at University of California this fall. The 22 percent of out-of-state residents who comprise this year's freshmen class is doubled from the previous year.
More emphasis placed on attracting nonresident students, not only takes a slot from a California student, but it allows the state to renege on its promise made to its residents.
California is a long way, literally and figuratively, from its 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education. The plan developed a three-tiered system with specific roles for the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and the community college system.
Recognizing the baby-boom demand would increase the demand for higher education, California politicians and academic administrators had the foresight to develop a master plan that made the state a leader in the field.
The master plan was developed so that everyone who met the academic standards -- regardless of economic means -- would have the opportunity to attend college.
Declining tax revenues, population growth, committed funds approved by the California voter for an assortment of issues, and institutionalized deficits have taken a heavy toll on a higher education system that was once the gold standard for the nation. California has paid a price for its failure to invest in this crucial aspect of its social infrastructure.
CSU has long been a vital cog in California's economic engine. Every $1 invested in a CSU student returns $4.62 to the state economy.
Most of the banter will predictably focus on the state Supreme Court's decision to allow illegal immigrants to qualify for resident tuition status. I suspect not much attention will be given to their inability to obtain grants, student loans or scholarships.
Through inflammatory hyperbole, the court's ruling will be used to incite rather than inform. Even if the court forbid illegal immigrants from attending UC or CSU schools, it wouldn't alter the pursuit of out-of-state residents to increase the coffers of the two university systems.
The state Supreme Court's ruling allowing for illegal immigrants who have met the requirements to receive in state tuition for UC and CSU schools has nothing to do with California's declining ability to fulfill the education promise it made 50 years ago to its residents.
Isn't this latter point the conversation we should be engaging?
 |
|
 Post a Comment.
We want to hear what you think!
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality -- Dante
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
