Greed: Blocking the right to a privilege
October 17, 2002 ~ 10:26 p.m.
It all started as disseminated rumor.
My boss walked in this morning, saying, �what�s all this about then? Is the university really going to hike fees up by ten thousand pounds?�
Midday, a distressed student at the office front counter � aghast at the proposed fee hike � needed consoling. And as I was the one on duty at the time, all I could say was, �Gosh, that sounds monstrous, but I know nothing about it. I can�t tell you anything.� I did genuinely feel terrible for him. In pure Clintonesque terms, I felt his pain.
After leaving work for the day, I spotted a slip of yellow paper on a bench. It said:
SILENT PROTEST
against Top-up fees � to prevent the introduction of top-up fees of �10k. We want [the University] council to withdraw the Rector�s paper, and a proper consultation to take place.
HAVE YOUR SAY � KEEP EDUCATION AFFORDABLE.
I was instantly brought back to the heady days of my college career, most notably at the school paper. As a member of the editorial staff, I took part in writing many an impassioned editorial against hikes in tuition and student fees, which were introduced by the Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts (for my British readers, a Chancellor is the equivalent of a Rector.) We agonized over what this meant to the working-class students of our school.
It did, however, create a dilemma for a young conservative as state taxes buffeted some of the cost of attending the University of Massachusetts � for example, should the taxpayer subsidize our education? Years later, the dilemma for this former college student continues.
State universities serve a purpose, but how much do we tax the general population for the privilege of an education? In my very early college days, I proudly wore a button pin proclaiming, Education is a right, not a privilege. The forgotten words, that were conspicuous in their absence, were, at what cost to the working man or the poor immigrant who pay taxes but who cannot attend school? Who were we old-school libertarian editors kidding? It was only a right insofar as some members of the public could not challenge it. We were privileged all right, even at a working-class state university.
Make no mistake, it was an exciting time to be a member of the university paper and to take part in those lead editorials. Our writings did reflect some good. We raged against further hikes in tuition to prop up the salaries of the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor, the Dean, and everyone else holding higher office at the University. The school was to serve the students, including the Administration, and we wouldn�t stand for anything less. Greed had no place in higher education.
But in terms of the bigger picture, we still got it wrong. We maintained that the man with two jobs who couldn�t possibly find the time to attend classes, nor pay for them if he had a family that extended beyond his wife, had to pay for our education. There were true working-class students who did struggle with time and money. But there weren�t enough. Many students were pampered; I was one of them. By accusing the Administration of seeking refuge in an ivory tower, we were essentially calling the kettle black, as we wrote from high up in the ivory tower ourselves.
Students in the U.K. have quite rightly paid their way since Tony Blair introduced a scheme to pay �1,000 toward tuition, which previously had been free, in cahoots with the grant scheme having ended years before by the Tory government. Clearly, these days, earning a university degree is more than just about studying hard. It�s about working hard to pay for it. As with any other luxury or privilege, one might ask? At the very least, this encouraged students at uni to take their studies seriously and not to waste all their time partying. Surely, in many ways, a good thing.
But despite my belief in education as a privilege, as a business which we are wise to invest in, but a business all the same, I am with the students at my university on this matter. The Rector is clearly trying to top up his salary and that of his cronies. And this comes at a time when a merger is being considered to merge our university with another major London school to become a worldwide rival to Harvard or Yale. Members of my staff were told that �this is not about cost-saving measures, it is not about money.� Yeah, right. Go tell it on the mountain. The rest of us have our feet planted firmly on the ground.
The cost of attending a university is tough enough as it is. And I will say it again � there is no room for greed in higher education. And I will stand with the students of the university of my workplace on this matter: No to the proposed �10,000 fees.
� M.E.M.
|
[Sign My Guestbook]
[View My Guestbook]
|
Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.
AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!