In the wake of the Asian economic crisis, many U.S. universities are experiencing a decline in student enrollment from Asia. Contrary to this trend, the University has experienced an increase in the number of Asian undergraduate students. But there are a number of currently enrolled international undergraduate students who are experiencing financial difficulties. While the University is taking some action to aid international students, it should do more.
In addressing this issue, the University has lobbied with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to relax the international student laws. As a result, the University has introduced a new policy allowing international students to take fewer credits and find employment in order to ease their financial problems.
This is a good move on the University's part in trying to assist students facing financial difficulties. But international students should evaluate the long-term educational and financial benefits of this policy before deciding whether to exercise this option.
Currently, all international undergraduate students are required by immigration laws to take a minimum of 12 credit hours. But as a result of taking fewer credits, there is a greater chance that a student will need more than four years to graduate. Assuming that the average tuition rate for international undergraduate students is approximately $10,000 per semester and that this figure remains the same for the next 10 years (which is highly unlikely), a student graduating in four years - eight semesters - will have to pay roughly $80,000. Students who take fewer credits each semester because of financial difficulties will have lower tuition rates, but if a student continues to enroll as a part time student, they will require more than four years to graduate. For these students there may be no financial benefit, because the total money needed to graduate will be greater than that of a student graduating in four years paying the higher tuition each semester.
Other than the problem of taking the required credits, international students must deal with immigration laws limiting their employment. International students can only seek employment through the University and can only work a maximum of 20 hours per week - a limit that the policy change will not affect. This simply means that international students can only hold jobs such as working in residence halls or in the library. While this requirement is not likely to change, perhaps the number of hours an international student should be increased. Increasing the maximum working hours could help students earn an extra $200 per week - assuming they can manage the extra workload while still devoting the necessary time to their studies.
The University, rather than trying to assist students in such a passive method, should take a more active approach toward assisting international undergraduate students. Currently, many international students have to pay full fees with the only source of financial support through parents - and not all international parents are wealthy, especially with the Asian economic crisis creating such financial tumult. Scholarships for international graduate students are plentiful, but undergraduate scholarships are not abundant. The University should begin by providing more scholarship opportunities for international undergraduate students to ease their financial problems. The University treasures its diverse campus, and if current trends continue unchecked, but campus may lose its international influences strictly because attending the University is too financially taxing.
Many students - regardless of their background - need some sort of financial help to attent the University. But international undergraduate students, due in no small part to economic crises around the globe, likely face an even greater financial challenge than some of their peers. Adding scholarships can allow international students an opportunity to ease their financial problems and at the same time concentrate on their studies.
Since 1863, when Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, this country has made great strides in civil rights and racial equality. Encouraged by strides over the years, the Harlem Renaissance to the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, most African Americans are now closer to achieving equality - but thousands have been left behind.
From the mid-1800s time until the early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture in particular partook in outright racist actions toward the black community. As a result, the number of black farmers has decreased from one million in 1900 to less than 10,000 today. Though they once owned 15 million acres of land and produced 10 percent of the annual gross domestic product, African Americans now farm only 2 million acres and produce less than 1 percent of the total commodities product.
What is most absurd about this whole situation is that the problem persists until the present day. While the rest of the nation tried to alleviate racism from the United States the 1960s, the USDA continued its horrendous practices up until the end of the Bush administration. In fact, the most prevalent occurrences happened after President Reagan dismantled the USDA's civil rights office in the early 1980s.
In response to the department's long-standing racist discrimination in farm loans, almost a 1,000 African American farmers have filed a class action suit against the USDA. Their claim includes the delays and denials of loan applications, early foreclosures, accelerated payment schedules and significant differences in the amount of loans and grants to blacks compared to whites. The suit also states that the government ignored hundreds of their discrimination complaints about this treatment outright. Meanwhile, hundreds of black farms are still being foreclosed on every year. The USDA itself has admitted to the racism they practiced, but no one has been punished and no actions have yet been taken to remedy the damage they caused. President Clinton promised the black community a variety of remedies, including settlement of the suit, participation in agriculture programs and loans where they have previously been barred. To date, Clinton's legislation has not been passed.
If the USDA wishes to be known as a non-discriminatory organization, then it can no longer ignore the racist actions performed by its employees. Although steps have been taken by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman to ensure that racist practices have ceased, more must be done. Investigations should be conducted to punish those involved and remove them from their positions. Each individual grievance must be dealt with on the merits of the case and full reparations made to those who have been hurt by decades of discrimination. The November elections present the perfect opportunity to make the plight of black farmers an issue. If this is a country that truly believes in civil rights and equality, the decades of USDA discrimination can no longer be ignored.
10-07-98
| Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |