Following months of protests, CSU Board of Trustees approves 5-year tuition hike

Students for Quality Education members hold signs while Angelmarie Taylor, a member from the CSU Channel Islands branch, speaks to the union members who gathered to protest and threaten a strike if proposed tuition increases are implemented at the California State University system on July 11, 2023. (Richard H. Grant | Signal Tribune)

The 6% tuition raise beginning in 2024 is expected to generate $840 million by 2028; a considerable dent in CSU’s $1.5 billion debt.

Frustrated sighs and scoffs of disbelief reverberated among the audience of students from across different California State Universities as the CSU board of trustees approved a tuition hike at its Wednesday meeting. 

Despite student and faculty protests over the last few months locally and across the state, the board approved the 6% tuition raise for the next five years.

The tuition raise is a part of the CSU’s now-approved Multi-Year Plan intended to address the financial gap of the $1.5 billion deficit of the CSU system. 

The raise will begin in the 2024-25 academic year and continue with a consecutive 6% yearly increase until 2028, raising the price for a full-time undergraduate student from $5,742 to $6,084 in its first year of implementation and up to $7,682 by the fifth year.

In its first year, the tuition raise will create $148 million in revenue for the CSU and $840 million in five years. The CSU board will also be requesting $145 million from the state. 

This is the first tuition increase since the 2011-2012 academic year and was passed with 15 yes votes, 5 no votes—from student trustees Diana Aguilar Cruz and Jonathan Molina Mancio, board member Lateefa Simon, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond—and no abstentions.

A California State University student speaks against the proposed tuition hike in light of student’s needs at a Sept. 13, 2023 CSU Board of Trustees meeting. (Briana Mendez-Padilla | Signal Tribune)

Despite multiple attempts to amend the proposal and lower the cap to three or four years for assessment—motioned first by board member Douglas Faigin and then by student trustee Aguilar Cruz—the board ultimately voted against those motions and the proposal was approved with the five-year cap. 

Dipping into reserves was suggested as a possible solution during Tuesday’s public comment. Steve Relyea, CSU’s Executive Vice Chancellor & Chief Financial Officer, said the entirety of the CSU’s reserves of $8.6 billion are not available to be used, as some of it is legally allocated for certain purposes. 

What could potentially be used is the $766 million in “rainy day funds.” However, according to board member Jack McGrory, around half of that money is being set aside for faculty and staff compensation. He added that not passing the tuition raise and using the reserves would leave two-thirds of the reserves gone in the span of 3 years. 

“That’s fiscal craziness. We can’t do that. You can’t ignore one side of the general fund and hope and pray for the other side we don’t even control,” McGrory said.

Students for Quality Education member Angelmarie Taylor speaks to the union members who gathered to protest and threaten a strike if proposed tuition increases are implemented at the California State University system. (Richard H. Grant | Signal Tribune)

Students and faculty have been protesting the proposed tuition hike since July and spent around two hours at Tuesday’s meeting sharing their stories about the struggles they face with the current tuition price and the hurdles a tuition hike would add. 

As students gathered outside before Wednesday’s meeting, Cal State Long Beach student and member of Students for Quality Education Jennifer Chavez shared how emotional the week has been for her.

“I don’t think that the pushback will do anything but stress us more out and make the students as a whole, as a unity just be very burnt out,” Chavez said. “Yesterday, I broke down crying, sobbing, because of how much work and effort we have to put in.”

Board members acknowledged the students’ stories but ultimately said they would have to vote yes for the sake of the financial well-being of the CSU system.

“Given the tenor and the language that was used yesterday, please know that all of us who are here, take this incredibly seriously,” board member Jose Antonio Vargas said. “I have to vote on what are the facts that are in front of me … And the fact is if we don’t do this, there is no alternative path that we can pursue.”

CSULB student and SQUE member Randy Santiago said he feels this type of comment from board members is just “pandering to the feelings and frustrations” of students and “using” their stories.

“It just seems like the folks inside really have a disconnection from who we are. And even those who claim to be from the same shoes that we are, you could tell that once they make it into a position where they hold power they really, really enjoy it,” Santiago said.

Total
0
Shares