 "Photo: Julio Salgado")
The Daily Forty-Niner has consistently touted the need to invest in every aspect of education that benefits all students. Our editorial approach to the pending Beach Legacy Referendum doesn’t change our utilitarian philosophy. The consensual determination of our editorial board is to reject the proposal as untimely and lacking in pragmatism.
We truly had to wrestle with our collective conscience over whether to endorse or reject the BLR. The newsroom was almost evenly divided over the pros and cons of the referendum.
If you haven’t read or heard yet, the BLR is a campus-wide ballot request to increase student fees by $95 per regular semester, more than tripling current fees, adding another $70 for summer students beginning in fall 2010.
Students taking classes year round would pay $260 per year for the BLR. The BLR fee would piggyback with the $110 per semester fee for the Student Recreation and Wellness Center now under construction.
The referendum asks students for a projected increase of $5.3 million per year in student fees beginning in the 2010-2011 academic year. Voting will be made available online tomorrow and Thursday, with sample ballots and what to watch for having been sent to students last week.
The BLR is intended to build, improve and maintain athletic facilities at Cal State Long Beach, as well as increasing athletic scholarships by an estimated $1.1 million per year. Part of the funding will be used to bring CSULB into federal Title IX compliance by adding a women’s rowing team.
In reality, the BLR is the realization of a prediction made two years ago by Dan Bridges, the president of the California Collegiate Athletic Association, to the California State University board of trustees.
In 2007, the University of California, San Diego was considering a referendum to raise fees to $95 per semester, more than tripling student fees, exactly the same scenario set up by the BLR.
In his assessment to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Bridges said, “I think virtually every institution in the system is looking toward a referendum or investigating it … It’s a snowball effect. Once one institution passes a referendum, it receives a big influx of money and the others have to either get greater support from the institution or ask students for more fees.” Does it sound familiar?
The BLR is not a static fee. Inflationary adjustments will be made according to the Southern California Consumer Price Index in three years, also after most current students have graduated. Southern California’s inflation rose 3.5 percent in 2008. It will also be adjusted every three years after.
Inflation is tallied by food prices, rent, healthcare, education, clothing and other economic factors. We’ve only had one minor deflationary cycle in more than 50 years, which saw overall economic factors in California drop approximately 1 percent during the 1990s recession.
CSULB President F. King Alexander said, in support of the referendum, “There’s never a good time to increase a student fee with a bad economy.” As true as Alexander’s comment was, there certainly are extremely bad times to pass on higher fees and this is one such time. In fact, this is probably the absolute worst time to tap tomorrow’s college students for money that doesn’t exist in their educational budgets.
In an interview for Business Weekly about university endowments published on Monday, March 1 Alexander said, “Our students need that money. We’re not wealthy enough to sock it away when we have so many needs on our campus right now.” The same can be said about the money being requested for the BLR.
Inside Higher Ed predicts the CSU system will face cuts exceeding $165 million through the next two academic cycles. For the second year in a row, the CSU will forego any new growth money promised from the Higher Education Compact of 2004.
CSU students could continue seeing 10 percent tuition increases through 2012 and beyond beginning this fall. These compounded predictions would lock out an estimated 2,000 new students this fall alone at CSULB. The cuts also translate into fewer instructional hours, professors and employees being laid off, and overcrowded classrooms.
Locally, the city of Long Beach announced overall unemployment has hit nearly 12 percent, and statewide it’s fluctuating around 8 percent, with 1.9 million Californians currently jobless. As local employers are tightening their belts, students will begin feeling the crunch of fewer available part- and full-time jobs.
New high school students and community college transfers are facing higher admissions criteria and are either being warehoused in community colleges, or dropping out altogether because of financially-induced shrinking educational opportunities.
These indicators erase the cliché philosophy of “Build it and they will come” that the BLR promises.
This type of investment must not come at the expense of depriving future generations of low-income, first-generation — mostly minority — college students from access to a public university. This will happen if the BLR passes and other financial hardships are imposed as a result of our flailing economy.
There is no doubt CSULB would benefit from a new soccer stadium, improved athletics and aquatic facilities, as well as everything else on the BLR shopping list. The fields are sloppy and being able to offer more athletic scholarships would probably elevate CSULB to a higher level of competitive recognition.
Bringing CSULB into Title IX compliance is essential to protect other programs, but the proposed women’s rowing team can be handled at a mere fraction, estimated at $300,000 for equipment, of the overall cost of the BLR. The same can be argued for better maintenance of the grass soccer fields and investing in night lighting.
The athletics department recently boasted it had a record fundraising year, which should be focused on making some of those needed improvements and increasing student athlete scholarships.
Some questions and concerns posed to BLR promoters never got answered. For instance, the BLR is laced with references throughout about how the greater Long Beach community would benefit.
If the city would gain so much value from these projects, why wasn’t this first approached as a city bond measure? This type of investment could have been spread out so future students wouldn’t have to burden the entire bill.
Included in the BLR is the potential to return $1.6 million in Instructionally Related Activity money to various student programs. Certainly this could fund things like student organization projects — including more potential money to the Daily Forty-Niner as the BLR indicates — and study abroad programs, but IRA funding is discretionary.
In the end, answers to the BLR predicament become obvious; we need to behave responsibly for those who don’t currently have a voice in the process, which means we must recommend a no vote on the BLR.
39 comments
Every statement I have read a statement from an official with respect to increases in "Instructionally Related Activit[ies]," the only say that the money COULD go to that. They point out certain programs that COULD have been fully funded already with that $1.6 million. But please take note that they don't say that $1.6 million WILL go to these activities and programs. (Oh, and also make sure to take note of the fact that "instructionally" is not even a word (see: www.m-w.com))
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fine. Just don't call people morons because they don't agree with your stance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fine. Just don't call people morons because they don't agree with your stance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fine. Just don't call people morons because they don't agree with your stance.