Editorial: Finding a solution for tuition hikes

As this year comes to a close, Tufts students and their families are starting to worry about paying next year’s tuition, which, as the decade-long pattern would predict, has been raised yet again by nearly $2,000, reaffirming Tufts’ position among the top most expensive schools in the country. And although the increase is at a four-year low of 3.6 percent, there has been heavy backlash from the community, the most organized of which has taken the form of an online petition.

The petition rightly criticizes the letter that the administration sent to all Tufts students via email on April 12, which detailed the increase in tuition and provided a brief and arguably vague attempt at explaining the reasons for the hike. Not only did the administration neglect to send the letter to parents of Tufts students (who more often than not are part of the payment process), but its explanation for the increase also assumed a cloudy and idealistic tone about maintaining Tufts' prestige in place of the needed transparency about where our money is going. Commendably, the letter did address the issue of diversity; the boost in cost was framed as a tool to achieve student diversification. Yes, it is logical that a higher tuition could allow for more money to go towards financial aid funds, but with the lack of transparency, we are left to wonder if that is actually the case. The increase could just as easily lead to the homogenization of campus with a mass of wealthy, mostly white students capable of paying full tuition.

The student leaders spearheading the petition have presented these issues in their list of demands to the administration, which include but are not limited to: “justification and explanation for all tuition increases,” “a tuition freeze for class year,” “greater support from the financial aid office” and that “Tufts move to a need-blind admission policy.” These demands do not seem entirely unreasonable or difficult to meet.

But while these demands seem just, they also subtly conflict with other realms of activism on campus. For the past several years at Tufts, student groups have fought for social justice causes that come in conflict with the desire to halt swelling tuition costs. For example, should the demand to divest from fossil fuels be met, Tufts will not receive the added financial boost needed to lower tuition. Investment in outside entities is a cornerstone in Tufts' financial framework. Likewise, requests to raise the minimum wage for on-campus jobs and to hire more full-time faculty rather than part-time also drag down funds. If the tuition were to remain the same from here on out, Tufts would likely have to find money elsewhere and perhaps in places that lack social justice outlooks.

That is not to say that students should refrain from fighting other injustices. We absolutely should. Rather, the conflict between these demands is something that we, as students, must understand and reconcile. Preventing hikes in tuition has no clear-cut path; it is naive to think that keeping tuition at the same rate is as simple as meeting a few demands. A low minimum wage, investments and part-time jobs, as insidious as they seem, are ways that Tufts maintains a functioning university. On this campus, there is an intense drive to create positive change in the world, but sometimes we so desperately want everything to be ideal that we forget positive change in one aspect of life often has some consequence in another. So, while this petition is a great step in the right direction, the tuition increase represents a mammoth issue with a complex solution that transcends the petition.

Before we demand anything of the administration, we must completely understand the implications of eradicating tuition hikes. This requires an open, transparent discussion between concerned students and the Tufts administration. Without transparency, we will see little progress in years to come.