IN THE past few years, a series of budget crunches have led to a keenly increased scrutiny of the financial relationship between the Virginia government and the University. Even more recently, controversy has erupted over a new plan to transform the University into a charter institution, taking less funding from state coffers in exchange for more administrative independence from the state legislature. While many agree that this charter plan does move us a step in the right direction, few have actually stepped back to reflect on the issues of principle that underlie this debate. Upon such reflection, it becomes clear that public funding for higher education is not merely a source of perpetual headache and discontent, but rather an altogether unnecessary and unjustifiable burden on our society.
Public education has the undeserved status of a sacred cow these days, especially on college campuses and doubly here at Mr. Jefferson's University. In fact, the dogmatic support of public funding for higher education is so strong around here that any serious debate on the matter seems almost impossible. But principle has beaten popularity before, so let's give it a shot.
The argument against public funding for higher education is not complex. Such funding does not materialize out of thin air. Instead, state taxes take this money away from a broad range of people -- most of whom come from the middle or lower classes and do not have children who will ever attend college. This money then provides an exclusive service to a relatively select group of people drawn predominately from the more prosperous sections of society. In other words, your public education is being financed in part by other people's money -- and most of them need that money a lot more than you do.
Imagine, for example, that you are one of the thousands of struggling single mothers in Virginia whose young children will never have the privilege of going to college. They might not even graduate from high school. But every two weeks when you get your meager paycheck, the state government takes part of it away and uses it to pay for things like polishing Thomas Jefferson statues or painting the columns of the Rotunda (again). On a fundamental level, this just isn't fair.
This situation looks even worse when you consider that public colleges and universities could in fact privatize themselves and continue to operate just as well as -- if not better than -- they currently do. At our own university, public funding comprises less than 10 percent of our budget, which could be offset by raising in-state tuition to out-of-state levels. This way, students would actually pay for their own educations instead of leeching off of the backs of their fellow citizens.
It is true that many other public institutions rely more heavily upon state funding than we do here at the University. At these places, it might be argued, privatization would require more significant tuition hikes, making poor students unable to afford college educations at all. This problem, however, could be easily fixed in the free market through a private system of student loans. Private companies would stand to make large amounts of money by loaning students money for their college educations, secure in the knowledge that upon graduation, these students' increased earning power would allow them to pay back their loans with interest. In this way, funding for colleges and universities could be driven completely by the self-interest of private individuals and companies who recognize that in today's world, education is a sound investment.
Privatization would also carry significant non-financial benefits by providing schools with wide-ranging curricular and administrative independence from their state legislatures. Consider, for example, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall's attempts to prohibit the University from distributing emergency contraception to students, or the University's dependence on state policies that govern living wage or same-sex partner benefits. If colleges and universities did not rely on the state to take other people's money, then they would not be nearly as beholden to the meddling whims of state legislators.
In spite of all this, many might argue that colleges can properly receive tax revenue because they essentially do provide a public good, benefiting all of society by providing a more educated and skilled citizenry. But this objection overlooks two key points. First, a college education is not really a public good, in that it undeniably confers direct and tangible benefits on some to the exclusion of others. But more importantly, the widespread demand for higher education practically ensures that colleges and universities would continue to thrive even if they were cut off from tax support. Thus, the social benefit of producing college-educated citizens does not depend on broad-based coercive taxation, but instead could be achieved through the spontaneous actions of free individuals.
But of course, if this type of idea doesn't immediately have appeal on college campuses across the country, it wouldn't be the first time.
Anthony Dick's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 10 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
