To quote a recent editorial piece in the Post, “Education is the reason we’re here. Everyone should have a right to education;”
This is a slogan that you will be hard pressed to find an opposing voice to. However it is a slogan that is flawed not only by the SDS’s reputation for encouraging class warfare, but also by the general progressive idea of entitlement.
First thing’s first. Blaming Chancellor Santiago’s or any of the high ranking administrator’s salaries as the reason we have high tuition rates at UW-Milwaukee is pure folly. Tuition and administrative overhead is set by the UW System Board of Regents as a direct result of how much money is appropriated by the state budget.
Therefore it is Gov. Doyle’s inability to balance the budget and our resulting $5.4 billion deficit that is to blame. If SDS were truly on top of this issue, they would be taking their case to state government and protesting the massive spending that got us into this predicament
But the problem we are addressing here is much larger than a failed governor and a bunch of misguiding students. The question is about the actual right to education itself. This is a tricky slope, because unlike the right to life or the right to liberty, a right to an education can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Now the SDS, as demonstrated by its rally, is currently of the progressive thought that a right to an education means that you deserve to be educated at any university for the lowest cost possible, preferably free.
This is your right as a student and you are entitled to that education come hell or high water. But let us stop and think for a second about how you came to be a student of UWM. Most of you, like me, became a student here because we met the criteria set by the university thus proving we will actually make use of an education here. We have done this through demonstration of our academic abilities and our drive to succeed. Under the SDS logic anyone could and should be college student because, well put simply, everyone “deserves” the right to an education. Does this sound right to you?
Instead of that obviously dangerous progressive logic, many have adapted a more practical definition of a right to an education that would revolve around access. But here again the progressive thought has turned the idea of access into another form of entitlement. We all should have access to the resource of a university or school because we deserve an education. Access is the key word, because as soon as someone can not afford tuition or did not fulfill the institutions criteria of a potential student, they can firmly say, “I was not given access.”
This is where Mr. Progressive comes in, dramatically points an accusatory figure to the people in power, and boldly states “Aha! This poor proletariat has been denied access to the education he or she has the right to! I demand revolution!” It all works so well. We have turned the simple situation of denial on a perfectly reasonable basis into the hot-button issue of the century because we believe everyone “deserves” higher education. This is wrong.
What is the correct way to address this issue? Well contrary to the title of this piece I do believe education is a right, but not in the way that we are entitled to it. Instead we have the right to receive education and to take part in academic discourse should we want it and should we earn it. The simple matter is that no one deserves to go to college, you earn your place among the roster of students by proving you will be a sound investment.
And should you fail to earn that place by not being qualified enough or not being able to afford a fair price, then you should know that there is a wonderful kind of institution called the public library and a tool there called the Internet, where knowledge is free for anyone’s consumption. College is not the end all for higher education, and many a successful man has done without it. The grand-staging rallies of SDS are nothing more than flawed logic trying to seep into the mainstream where unaware students will enable them to achieve their own goals of a society where government will control your life. They should not be seen as the voice of the students, but the voice of a group whos interests are outside of the students.
Aaron Jeske is a UWM student.
In American culture one of our strongest beliefs is that of the self made man: the belief that you can show up with nothing but the willingness to work hard, and if you do, in the right ways, you will climb the ladder to success.
Although there are alternative routes to success, a college education is the most direct route to becoming part of the middle class. There are few other routes that exist, all of them much more demanding, difficult, and frequently less effective than the college route.
If you are accepted into college, but unable to attend because you are incapable of paying your tuition and living expenses even with the help of loans, parental financial support and your own personal income, there is a big problem with access to upward mobility in the economic system: the death of the American dream.
All of that being said, I would like to see an actual statistic showing the number of students who have utilized all financial support options and still dropped out of UWM because of an inability to meet financial demands.
I think you’re on point that, at this university, this movement is not exactly the voice of all the students (although few would object to the idea of lowering tuition). This whole battle is not just about rising costs: there is a whole “progressive” agenda behind it that has powered it. If risings costs were the only motivating factor, the petitions would be to the state legislature and the Governor and not to the Chancellor.
I really wonder what the reaction would be like from both sides of the aisle if land grant colleges did not already exist and were proposed today? “Too much government spending on something the people should be paying for themselves,” probably. If the UW system did not already exist, it would not be created. Forget tuition costs, the public sentiment is likely against funding public education at all.
Decent article – I would like to touch on two points you make:
1. Is education a right? I would have to say “no.” The old adage is ‘your rights end with your nose,” and I don’t think there is any way to provide college education to all for free without breaking this standard. If it costs taxpayers money your ‘right to education’ is impinging on others.
2. Merit – As pointed out, college education is something one must prove qualified and deserving of which inherently means some are unfit or not deserving. Even if we did have free tuition schools would and SHOULD deny access based on merit.
No…college education is not a right. It’s access to a college education that is a right. And, the general idea is that if you don’t get a college education…or at least some skills training beyond high school (which would most likely occur in trade school or community college and still costs money)…you are not going to be employed anywhere. Plumbers and auto mechanics and medical assitant training still costs as much as going to a State U.
Yes, I am quite sure that “I surf the web at the local library” would look just as good on my resume and be of as much assistance in my getting a job as a college degree.
Aaron, I am not sure that I have ever heard anyone claim that “education is a right” in the sense that you are attributing to the protestors; you seem to be attacking a straw man. The only sense in which progressives usually claim education to be a right is with regard to access. And by access, they do not mean that any and everyone, no matter what, ought to have access to a university education. No, they mean that one’s ability to get a university education should not be limited by things that are not directly relevant to one’s academic ability. On this account, failing to grant admission to students who do not have the financial resources to attend is illegitimate for precisely the same reasons that denying students admission on the grounds of race is illegitimate. The point is simply that academic standards are the sole relevant factor in determining whether one ought to have access to the university and that any other standard (e.g. financial, racial, gender) is a form of oppression (in this case class oppression, racial oppression, and gender oppression).
I agree education is not a right. In Europe they have free post high school education, but if you make mistakes early in life you dont qualify for it. Im america we are lucky that if we can finance our education we can achieve it. without 45% income taxes. College is a priveledge not a right.
@Curious George
See this is what I mentioned by access. It’s meaning has been so misconstrued by the left that I don’t think any one person has an idea of what access is. Does it mean simply that everyone should have access to a 4 year education? Or does it mean that you should not be denied if they meet the criteria? But to you later point I vehemently disagree about the cost difference between tech school and a State University like ours. UWM is roughly 3 times as much tuition per credit as Gateway, not to mention they can get you out in less that 4 years. In addition Trade school usually starts with some sort of mentor or apprenticeship, meaning you already have the job but you are working to improve your skills you can make more money. I would argue that Large universities have much to learn from this model.
@Student
No, but Simply putting “Graduated with an MA from UWM” means just as little. Employers look for a sound return on investing in your work. This means most employers are looking for experience and skills, which require no more than your own brain and determination to acquire (albeit you may need to prove yourself a bit more to show you really do have those skills). A college degree means nothing if you can’t apply it and plenty of people have done well without one.
@Grad Student
Quite frankly I understand your logic, but what is important here is the the protesters managed to mainstream their message so that any student could agree if they did not know the truth. Mind you SDS is a radical left wing organization, they do not want to simply lower tuition. If this were the case they wouldn’t resort to the travesty of a protest they displayed on campus, but rather focus their efforts on getting to the root of the problem and using the avenues (Such as Student Governance) already in place to achieve their means. Their long term goal is the downfall of the current system and the rise of their own brand of education which would be much worse due to the fact that the government would control your education status. Why else would they use their own “straw man” named Chancellor Santiago as the brunt of their allegations when he is not even in control of tuition?.
In an ideal society, access to education would be purely on academic acheivement and nothing else, but unfortunately in the real world even education costs money. Good for us students then that there are alternatives to the standard 4 year plan to get a good job. Never forget the idea of a self-made man!
At no point does any university discriminate based on economic standing, and failure to admit people who cannot pay tuition is not discrimination. Education has a good/service and customer relationship. If you don’t pay you don’t get the service and that is not discrimination.
Equality of opportunity simply states that you have the same standards of opportunity as everyone else. Such as the opportunity to be admitted with the same admissions standards and attend school at the same rate of tuition. The argument that being unable to afford tuition means you did not have an equal opportunity is a falsehood in the constitutional sense.
I’m glad you wrote this article, Aaron, and I’m also glad the majority of commenters have identified with this allocational philosophy. The greater the proportion of people who are entitled to have at least one try at college, the greater the proportion of people who will then feel entitled to a white-collar or professional job, when in reality no one is even entitled to make a living or to survive off handouts. Maybe a person is entitled to breathe…but I don’t think childbearing should be a right because all this entitlement to propagate one’s genes creates more problematic resource users, i.e., more people who claim entitlement.
Being proud of working your way through college seems to be a dated line of thinking today. I get 5 hours a sleep a night during weekdays and am damned proud of it.
“SDS’s reputation for encouraging class warfare” I agree that they do this; I also think class war is far better than class oppression. What’s your position on how things should work? The oppressed classes should quit complaining about and acting against their exploitation by the upper classes? As long as there as sociopaths who have no qualms about abusing populations in order to make more money than they can legally spend, there will be the necessity of class war.
“general progressive idea of entitlement” Depends of your perspective, but progressives don’t believe in entitlement any more or less than other people, they just believe in DIFFERENT entitlements and for different groups. Progressives think all people are entitled to education and health care, to name a few. Neoconservatives, for example, think anyone who can manage it is entitled to get paid simply for owning something like a business or land, or that banks are entitled to speculate in financial markets with other people’s money and have the public bail them out. Hell, most people in our culture believe that individuals are entitled to own personal property, but this is hardly a universal view (and is fairly recent in human history).
“Tuition and administrative overhead is set by the UW System Board of Regents as a direct result of how much money is appropriated by the state budget.” Absolutely true; I also thought the protest was rather misdirected.
“Therefore it is Gov. Doyle’s inability to balance the budget and our resulting $5.4 billion deficit that is to blame.” Absolutely untrue; it is our legislature’s continuing reduction of taxes in the face of a flagging economy (over the last ten years) that results in deficit – people want their roads and water mains and sewage system and public utilities and fire departments and police protection etc. etc. but don’t want to pay for them. 1 != 2, and you can’t change that fact.
“the progressive thought that a right to an education means that you deserve to be educated at any university for the lowest cost possible, preferably free” That’s not the position – the position is that everyone has a right to be educated up to the limit of their ability to learn at A university – not ANY university – for “free” (tax-funded, and that’s not free even for people who don’t pay many/any taxes, as the only way to make a profit in a capitalist market is to pay your labor less than the value they add to your product; taxes allow the impoverished to get SOME of that value they add to the economy back, though certainly not all of it) – not at the lowest cost “possible”.
“anyone could and should be college student because, well put (do you mean “well-put” or “well, put”; I ask not to be a dick about grammar but because there’s a distinction in meaning) simply, everyone “deserves” the right to an education. Does this sound right to you?” Yes, yes it does.
“Instead of that obviously dangerous progressive logic” Why is this dangerous? It’s not obvious to me at all…
“We have turned the simple situation of denial on a perfectly reasonable basis into the hot-button issue of the century because we believe everyone “deserves” higher education. This is wrong.” Denial on a reasonable basis? Denial because one’s parents are paid minimum wage or can’t find a job and therefore can’t afford to send their kid to school? How is this “reasonable”?
“Instead we have the right to receive education and to take part in academic discourse should we want it and should we earn it.” Huh? this is EXACTLY the progressive position; how can you possibly think YOU deserve to be here if you can’t understand that simple point? The whole idea is that those with the desire and ability to learn but who can’t afford to pay money are allowed to attend a university. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the public should pay for someone to go to a university so they can sit around and party, constantly skip classes, etc. WTF are you talking about?
“proving you will be a sound investment” Ah, now I see, you have so internalized the corporate model of social organization that you see people as an investment, on which the investor should expect reasonable (material) returns.
“And should you fail to earn that place by not being qualified enough or not being able to afford a fair price,” Again, how does not being able to afford “a fair price” (again, “free” in my opinion, though as I stated above, free isn’t actually free) mean that you haven’t earned that place? Raise minimum wage to the point that someone can earn enough at 20 hrs/week to support him/herself with food and rent on a modest apartment, and guarantee employment for anyone who wants it (and is able to work) and then we can talk about people “fail[ing] to earn a place”.
“there is a wonderful kind of institution called the public library and a tool there called the Internet, where knowledge is free for anyone’s consumption” Okay… Of course, many of those who share your views ALSO want to stop funding things like libraries. Additionally, actual learning/education is not the reason most people go to clooege (or not the primary reason): most people go to get the CERTIFICATION (and potentially the skills, though not necessarily as they may already have them) that they need in order to work in a particular field. Libraries are great sources of information and education, but they do not give degrees. Finally, one has little time for self-education if one is working two jobs at a total of 60~80 hrs/week just to make ends meet.
Generally, I think you’re assuming that everyone in the country has had the same kind of life and opportunities that you have had, that there aren’t systemic, institutional barriers to entry into a university for many people, that laziness or stupidity are the only reasons people cannot attend. Try stepping outside of your sociocultural bubble from time to time.