On April 8, 2013, I co-wrote a letter to The Post arguing that guaranteed tuition was a “false solution to student debt.” Nearly a year later, Student Senate still refuses to take a stance and few understand the model.
Wednesday the Ohio Board of Regents approved Ohio University’s guaranteed tuition plan, dubbed the “OHIO Guarantee” by administrators. John Carey, chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents, believes it is an “innovative way to make college more affordable,” according to a previous Post article.
Considering not even OU’s administration has been calling the “OHIO Guarantee” an “affordability plan,” I’m skeptical Carey has even read the Board of Trustees’ proposal.
In previous editions of “College Matt-ers,” I argued that the guaranteed tuition model adds disadvantages to students already at risk of dropping out; gives the university the ability to rapidly increase the cost of attendance; and requires a one-time increase significantly above the state tuition cap.
Doesn’t sound too affordable to me.
Similarly uninformed are the senate presidential candidates who keep emphasizing the need to educate the student body about guaranteed tuition, but if the two debates last week are any indication, they first need to educate themselves.
At the debate hosted by The New Political and AVW Productions, moderator Ben Postlethwait asked if candidates would work for or against the “OHIO Guarantee.”
Instead of answering the question, ONE’s presidential candidate Jordan Ballinger said his party would put out a survey to see how students feel about the plan, and only then would senate take a stance.
Though I applaud Ballinger’s attempt at democracy, he – much like Nick Southall last year – fails to see the urgency of the issue at hand. Ballinger and his ticket need to show leadership by making an argument to students why they are for or against guaranteed tuition.
Ballinger’s logic is also inconsistent. He says we can’t take a stance without consulting the students first, though he is more than comfortable declaring that we need student trustee voting rights or radically changing the rules of Senate Appropriations Committee without seeking student opinion. It’s also strange that the one issue he wants to take a survey on is something that won’t even affect the students currently on campus.
Action’s presidential candidate, Zainab Kandeh, provided the most defeatist answer. Not only did she refuse to take a stand on guaranteed tuition, she considers it to be a foregone conclusion and instead we should be asking the administration questions about how it will be implemented, such as, “Is it going to be adjusted with inflation?” and “Is it going to be compared to what other universities around us are paying?”
These are good questions, but I am happy to point out to Kandeh that these answers are conveniently located in the Board of Trustees’ agenda from January. Regardless, Kandeh sounds more interested in preemptive damage control than actually learning about and criticizing a model that isn’t scheduled to be implemented until fall of 2015.
Megan Marzec, Restart’s presidential candidate, was the only one to voice her opposition to the “OHIO Guarantee,” calling it “extremely detrimental” to students already at-risk of dropping out. However, we need more students to oppose the model, and I urge Ballinger and Kandeh to join her.
It may be several years until we witness the full consequences of guaranteed tuition at OU. Perhaps then senate will finally do its job and take a stance. But by then, it will most definitely be too late.
Matt Farmer is a senior studying political science and education. Have any thoughts about guaranteed tuition or the Student Senate election? Email him at mf291209@ohiou.edu.
