University students often complain about policies such as tuition hikes, parking fare increases and facility maintenance timelines that are the direct result of government funding decisions. Yet rarely is this discontent acted upon in a substantive way.
Former Student Council president Colin Hood and Lena Witek, University Democrats campaign and party coordinator, proved to be an exception. They were two of 90 university students from across the nation chosen to spend April 9-13 in Washington, D.C. lobbying Congress to pass the Collegiate Housing and Infrastructure Act. This legislation would alter the federal tax code to grant 100 percent tax deductible status to donations made to not-for-profit student housing entities, which primarily consist of fraternity and sorority housing corporations. The majority of the student-lobbyists came from public universities, whose student housing budgets have been hit hard by the recession.
The bill certainly would benefit fraternity and sorority housing, and Hood, Witek and their fellow student-lobbyists deserve to be commended for their activism. Given the inadequate flow of revenue already hampering the federal government, however, requests for preferential tax treatment must be balanced against the potential benefits of other programs that could be financed with the money that would be lost. Therefore, until the federal government is able to make a long-term commitment to fully funding financial aid awards such as the Pell Grant program, as well as research grants and a variety of other crucial initiatives pertaining to higher education, it cannot justify foregoing additional revenue by extending tax deductible status to not-for-profit housing.
There are merits to the argument that not-for-profit housing groups should be able to receive tax deductible donations. For one, tax deductible contributions made directly to universities may be put toward the construction and renovation of student housing facilities whereas those given to fraternities and sororities are limited to projects "of a purely educational nature," according to the Capital Fraternal Caucus website. Additionally, more than 250,000 students nationwide live in fraternity or sorority residencies, making them a major source of off-campus housing.
Most compelling, though, is the dire need for safety upgrades within the buildings owned by fraternity and sorority housing corporations. The CFC says, for example, that only about half of fraternity and sorority houses have sprinkler systems installed within them, which is an unacceptably low proportion given its claim that "there has never been a fire-related fatality in fraternal housing that has sprinklers."
Yet as with any proposed expansion of tax benefits, the legislation would come at a price. Specifically, the CHIA is estimated to cost $148 million throughout a 10-year window. Although Witek pointed out that the legislation's annual price tag is less than the average cost of a new dorm building - which she cited as $22 million - the fact remains that it would mean less could be spent on financial aid or research grants at universities. Coming immediately after the federal government eliminated the $42 million Byrd Honors Scholarship program and cut $260 million worth of funding to the National Institutes of Health in its 2011 budget, the proponents of the CHIA must recognize that there is very little tax revenue to spare.
Although granting tax deductible status to not-for-profit student housing would assist the Greek community and a handful of other groups, the reduction in federal revenue also would jeopardize students' access to financial aid and research opportunities. It could, for example, give legislators another excuse to enact more severe cuts to the NIH, as well as to the Pell Grant program, which Republican congressmen have sought to cut for years.
Promoting access to safe housing is a laudable goal, and students can look to Hood and Witek for leadership in that endeavor. The specific ways in which this objective is pursued, however, must take into account the interests of all student constituencies and the difficult set of circumstances complicating the contemporary policymaking process.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
