Last year, the state legislature tried to penalize the University for extending health benefits to domestic partners of employees. This punitive measure was declared illegal by state Attorney General Frank Kelley earlier this month.
A few years ago, the problem was the University's ratio of in-state to out-of-state students. When the percentage of out-of-state students climbed higher than 30 percent, the legislature withheld millions of appropriated dollars. Although the money was later restored, it began a disturbing trend of Lansing's efforts to dictate the University's admissions and internal policies.
The admissions issue resurfaced last week, as Rep. Morris Hood (D-Detroit), criticized the University for failing to maintain a 70:30 in-state to out-of-state ratio. Given recent history, Hood's words - accusing the University of arrogance in breaking the agreement - are troublesome. Some view Hood's comments as a thinly veiled threat: Bring the ratio in line with our demands, or lose the appropriations.
The statements demonstrate the hold state legislature have over public universities. With a few tugs on state purse strings, lawmakers can do great damage. The ultimate victims of their machinations are students. On one level, students might be called upon to replace lost state money, in the form of higher tuition and fees. Furthermore, the University is a world-class institution, capable of attracting the best and brightest students to Ann Arbor. The presence of a 30-percent out-of-state admissions cap could prevent valuable and diverse non-resident voices from being heard in the community.
The issue may have played a part in the funding recommendations released by the House of Representatives Higher Education Appropriations (HEA) Subcommittee last week. Chaired by Hood, the subcommittee called for an average 5.5-percent increase in state funding for Michigan's public colleges and universities. However, the University's recommended share amounts to only a 4.8-percent increase.
Even the smaller increase is not guaranteed. The House HEA's Senate counterpart has yet to release its recommendations, but subcommittee chairman John Schwarz (R-Battle Creek) indicated a recommended increase of about 3.5 percent. If the two chambers approve different funding increases, they must reconcile the two versions before final passage.
The likely outcome for the University is a funding increase far below the 5.5-percent average proposed by the House HEA. While the University can survive a temporary decrease in state appropriations - the campus receives ample funds from federal and research grants - it deserves more support. For the money and prestige the University brings the state, it deserves an end to value judgments from Lansing and state appropriations proportionate to other institutions.