Universities both public and private are struggling to deal with the financial realities of this national recession without compromising their commitment to education. Economic constraints have made budget cuts unavoidable for most universities, and the California State University (CSU) system, hamstrung by a particularly tight state budget, has cut costs in ways that directly harm student education. The CSU's decision was unwise, but all the blame cannot be placed on the schools, subject as they are to California's capricious state funding.
In response to major funding cuts from the state, professors in the CSU system are now required to take off two teaching days per month and accept a 10 percent salary cut. Students' testimonies indicate that they are feeling the effects of this decision, and they are not pleased. Teachers faced with less classroom time are forced to slash entire sections from their curricula. In short, students are losing out.
In addition to the furloughs, lecturers are being laid off and entire courses are being cut. Students find themselves learning less than they were, now in overflowing lecture halls. A degree from a CSU school may well become less valuable than it was just a year ago. Although some professors have generously chosen to teach classes for which they are not being paid, universities cannot rely on the charity of their professors to ensure that students learn what they are paying to learn.
The purpose of universities is to educate. Why, then, have state schools in California chosen to cut costs in a way that directly and dramatically harms students' learning? Universities should prioritize the academic experience, and when facing financial constraints it should be their highest goal to cut costs in sectors that do not compromise academics.
Tufts is a private university, not subject to state budget restraints, but it too has been dealt a tough hand by the recession. The university has put a premium on finding ways to cut costs that do not compromise students' intellectual welfare. Facing major endowment losses, Tufts focused on cutting spending not directly tied to the classroom. When planning Orientation 2009, Tufts looked for ways to "save money without hurting programming," Joseph Golia, director of the Office for Campus Life and co-director of undergraduate orientation, told the Daily. Instead of giving away goodie bags of Tufts paraphernalia, orientation offered students deals and giveaways from local businesses looking for a promotional opportunity. Overall, Tufts managed to reduce its orientation budget by $50,000. If each of the CSU's 23 campuses could achieve this level of savings, the system would retain over $1 million.
This would still be a drop in the bucket. Additionally, as a private institution with a more than $1 billion endowment, Tufts does not face budget cuts of the same magnitude as those felt by the CSU system.
The biggest issue here is the $564 million in cuts that California's state government has levied on the CSU. The state's frustratingly idiosyncratic tax code suffers from one particularly glaring — and costly — eccentricity.
Proposition 13, passed in 1978, reset assessed home values to 1975 levels, barred property tax from exceeding 1 percent of a home's value and, most importantly, stated that a property's assessed value cannot rise by more than 2 percent per year. This leaves owners of multimillion-dollar homes paying taxes that resemble the rates from decades past — and it forces California to look elsewhere for income. To income tax, for example. And to cuts to its education budget. Thanks to Proposition 13, the state with one of the highest average property values in the country is shooting itself in the foot.
The CSU system should avoid cutting back on funding that goes directly to the classroom. More importantly, California should take a hard look at its tax code, and realize that solid education is more important than the rights of lavish estate holders to keep their taxes unreasonably low.
