Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants...Updates

The Arkansas Senate voted down legislation that would provide undocumented immigrants with in-state tuition rates, if they attend an Arkansas public school for atleast three years and recieve a high school diploma.  Similar legislation has been approved by 10 states in the U.S.  Yet, many states have been hesitant to move forward with such legislation, including Maryland, becuase of possible violation of federal law, as covered in a recent article in DIVERSE.

Congress passed the Illigal Immigration and Immigration Responsibility Act in 1996 to address a number of issues in the immigration debate.  One issues is that of tuition for undocumented immigrants.  The IIRIRA reads:

In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

In essence, Congress intended to eliminate the ability for states to afford in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants through this bill.  The ten states that provide in-state tuition for these individuals, and those who attempted to do so, see a loop hole in this clause by affording in-state tuition rates for any individual who attends school for three years in-state.  Accordingly, this can be an in-state citizen, an out-of-state citizen, a legal immigrant, or an undocumented immigrant.  

Congress since attempted to overturn the limiting clause from the IIRIRA through the DREAM Act.  A major leader in this effort is Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois).  Votes for approval are in place, but some in the Senate have blocked this from through a failed cloture vote on the past. A recent article in Inside Higher Education highlights that proponents are attempting to attach an amendment to another bill, such as the Department of Defense Authorization Act.

Of note, the Supreme Court has yetto take up the issue of whether the federal law preempts state laws in this specific area of immigration.  Yet, the California Court of Appeals recently invalidated the California law permitting this policy in a case Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (2008).  The case has been appealed to the California Supreme Court.

I have written a paper on this issue, which you can read at your leisure.  Here is a brief abstract:

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, intending to end the practice of affording undocumented immigrants in-state tuition rates for college. Subsequently, state legislatures have acted to circumvent the federal law through technical changes in the requirements for in-state tuition. In light challenges in federal regulation of immigration, many illegal immigrants reside in America and progress through K-12 public schools. 65,000 undocumented immigrants graduate from high school each year and over 1.5 million undocumented immigrant children attend public K-12 schools. A technical battle has ensued in courts, debating the balance of federal intent and textual interpretation in a federal preemption challenge. While courts have periodically dismissed cases on procedural grounds in the past, a recent California Court of Appeals Decision in Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (2008) invalidated a California law allowing for in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. The case has subsequently been appealed. Yet, without a U.S. Supreme Court decision, varied interpretations of the federal law will result in incongruent execution of a critically important policy of higher education tuition for undocumented immigrants.

Textbook Legislation passes the House

The House of Delegates passed their version of a Textbook Bill today, after a favorable review with amendments from the Appropriations Committee on Saturday.  Substantive changes reduce administrative burdens to universities and bookstores, which will ensure that the cost of textbooks is not inadvertenly increased.  A few amendments seem to cater to book publishers, skirting provisions attempting to address bundling and integrated textbooks.  Here is a list of amendments that I will advocate for:

• On page 4 Line 15 C.1.III remove the word "not"  to read "Which textbooks are integrated textbooks and are therefore subject to subsection (F) (3) of this section, as reported by the publisher under subsection (E) of this section."
• On page 5 Line 33 D.2.II.5  remove the word "not" to read "...that an integrated textbook is subject to subsection (F)(3) of this section."
• On page 6 Line 20, E.1.III:  reinstate "expressed as an itemized list."
• On page 6 Line 24&25 E.1.V:  reinstate "Variances in price, if any, between bundled and unbundled items."

With two versions of the bill passed in the House and the Senate, a conference committee will be convened.  The committee will include three senators and three delegates, and four of the six must come to consensus on an acceptable version of the bill.  Then, comparable amendments are submitted to both bodies; 50% approval of the new bill is needed from both houses prior to April 13.  

The House bill generally addresses most of my concerns with the bill regarding administrative burdens and limitations on academic freedom.  Hopefully, members of the Senate and House cancome to a reasonable agreement, hopefully much closer to the House version, so that the bill does not have the same fate as last year's version.

A Good Samaritan Policy for college campuses

Student leaders at UMCP have long advocated for a Good Samaritan Policy for students contacting police and emergency services for students dangerously under the influence of alcohol.  The policy has gained significant student support in past years, but broader campus community has been resistant.

A committee was formed last year to review this issue to develop a policy for the University Senate (the campus shared governance body) to consider the policy.  The Diamondback reports that the new proposed policy addresses many concerns of faculty and staff raised in previous years.  The policy protects both the student under the influence and the student contacting emergency personnel from sanctions.  Of note, UMCP students approved the policy by referendum during last year's election with 90% support.

In my view, the policy is long overdue at UMCP; it's also a policy that other campuses should consider.  The policy protects students who choose to make responsible decisions in siding with safety.  The policy is long overdue, and is one that when implemented, sets a tone that student safety is a first priority.

Budget Updates from the Senate and the Governor

Today, the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee voted in its amendments to the Governor's originally proposed budget.  Members approved a base budget cut of $5.4 million and a fund balance cut of $4 million.  This $9.4 million cut is less than half of the proposed $20.8 million cut from the House ($10.8 budget, $10 fund balance).

Both committee reports have maintained the expectation that the Board of Regents will still support a tuition freeze, despite cuts that will likely erode quality.

In the Governor's amended budget today, he cut the original $16.9 million from the base budget that would support the tuition freeze.  In its place, he has filled the $16.9 million hole with two years of funding from the federal stimulus package.  The upside of this proposal is that there will be full-funding of the budget and tuition freeze for two years.  The downside is that after two years, a larger-than-normal hole will open up that will need to be filled by state dollars in FY2012.

**TAKE ACTION** Support Full Funding for Higher Education

Funding for USM institutions is at risk!  The House Appropriations Committee voted to decrease funding by $20.3 million last week.  Take 2 minutes to let your elected representatives know how important it is to support higher education (if you are an out-of-state student, feel free to use your campus address).

Click this link to TAKE ACTION to send an email message to your legislators letting them know that you support full-funding of the Governor's budget.  The sooner you send, the better.  Forward this link to your friends, parents, neighbors, and professors so that legislators hear how important funding higher education is (they can use this specific link).  It only takes a few minutes by simply entering your address and editing a pre-drafted message.  Be sure to let your legislators know your role in the USM (student, faculty, etc.).

A cut of $20.3 million will ensure tuition is not frozen for in-state undergaduates, lower the quality of programs for all students, and could threaten pay/job security for faculty and staff.

If you have further questions, please email me ASAP at joshmichael@umbc.edu or call me at (410) 294-8581.

Read this message from the USM website:

Support Higher Education Funding  Oppose Legislative Cuts to Higher Education

Governor O’Malley’s FY 2010 budget proposal for the University System of Maryland supports the overarching goals shared by the state and the University System of Maryland:

• provide access to high-quality and affordable programs and services;
• ensure that the state’s public higher education system sustains its critical role in advancing Marylanders’ quality of life—intellectually, economically, socially, culturally, and in areas related to health.

The Department of Legislative Services is reccomending the General Assembly cut the USM funding by $5.7 million dollars and possibly more. Ask your legislators to reject this cut and fully fund higher education to maintain the quality, affordability and accessability of our public universities.

Cuts proposed in the House, debate over tuition freeze

The subcommittee on Education of the House Appropriations Committee voted last week to cut the USM Budget another $20.3 million as part of an effort to balance the state budget.  Of the $20.3 million, $10 million will come from the base operating budget (meaning a carry-over cut in years out) and $10.3 from the fund balance, meaning a one-time cut from the USM's savings that are used to sure up bonds for buildings.

The Governor proposed in his budget this year to increase funding for higher education by $27 million, $16.9 million dedicated to supporting a fourth straight tuition freeze for undergraduate students.  The increases, together, would both maintain quality and increase affordability by holding down the cost of tuition for students. 

Yet, after cutting $20.1 million from the budget, House officials still feel that the USM should hold the line on tuition.  Subcommittee Chair Delegate John Bohanan said, 

I would hope and doubt that the impact would result in a tuition hike for students...In the end, higher education is going to fare extremely well.

In the Governor's original budget, the tuition freeze support funding is listed as a separate line-item.  Delegates left this language in, assuming that the designation would ensure that the money would actually be used to hold tuition.

USM Chancellor Brit Kirwan expressed that this was not the case, and that with general fund dollars cut, that the tuition freeze dollars would then simply fill the whole of depleted funds.  The Board of generally only supported "funded" tuition freezes, of which the house proposal would not be.

I personally am opposed to the concept of an "unfunded" tuition freeze, as is the case in the House version of the budget.  Fortunately, the Board of Regents sets tuition policies, partially removing the decision from political pressures.  Chancellor Kirwan has highlighted that higher education in Maryland appreciates all the support and recognizes the need to cut the budget during the tough ficsal times--but not at the cost of major deficiences in quality.  

While the House version is far from the final proposal, the move to institute an "unfunded" tuition freeze from legislators is concerning.  With strapped universities, quality erodes.  Class sizes grow, faculty are overloaded, library resources remain stagnant, campus hours shorten, other fees arise, among other indicators.  A moderate tuition increase is an appropriate compromise if the state cannot fund the USM budget to the appropriate level.

But, in the meantime, the Senate is still in the process of developing its budget proposal.  Traditionally, the Senate is a bit more liberal in supporting higher education.  I have met with both the Chair of Budget and Taxation, Senator Currie, and the Chair of the Education subcommittee, Senate Kasemeyer, who both said to me that they plan to provide full funding for a tuition freeze.  So, we continue to share our concerns and thoughts with members in the Senate.  Once the Senate has a budget proposal, the House and Senate will meet in conference committee to work out details.

Check out articles highlighting developments:

- in The Sun

- in The Diamondback

- in The Chronicle of Higher Education

Smoking on Campus

It's hard to walk on any college campus and not run into a cloud of cigarette smoke.  It's something that most of us come to accept.  There are always certain entrances, walkways, and patios that non-smokers simply avoid.

But recently, university officials in Maryland have taken a stand on a number of campuses to regulate public smoking.  UMBC and College Park both endorsed plans that limit smoking on campus.  In the case of UMCP, individuals are not allowed to smoke indoors or within 15 feet of any building entrance.  at UMBC, students cannot smoke within 20 feet of a building entrance, and are restricted in common areas like Academic Row and on the Commons Patio.  These policies are met with modest and ineffective enforcement methods.

In recent months, university officials have stepped up their game.  Citing second-hand smoke and "butt" littering and driven by the stigma of smoking, officials hope to make their campus more attractive for visitors and prospective students.  Last year, the Towson Administration rejected a regulatory plan that would permit smoking only at certain areas on campus.  Instead, the Administration called for a completely "smoke-free" campus.  The administration is in the process of "recieving feedback" from students on the idea.  Students have expressed to me that these sessions have been more informative than conducive to conversation and discourse.

At UMBC, the Residential Life staff stepped up their game and overran the regulations in the policy.  They outlined designated smoking areas for students and forced ResLife staff to enforce the policy.  UMBC student Paula McCusker fought back, and successfully repealed the expanded interpretation of the Non-Smoking Policy.  She tells about her experience on her blog.

CNN highlighted  in 2007 trends in "smoke-free" campuses in an article.

The issue raises quite a question for student and campus leaders.  Consensus has seemed to develop on the need to regulate smoking somewhat to protect those who choose not to smoke.  Secondhand smoke has proven harmful, and it's simply unpleasant to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke.

But to what extent should it be regulated?  One of the major challenges is the lack of enforcement of such policies.  Who is to police smoking?  Some have suggested campus police and security, but don't they have more important things to be monitoring?

I believe students should have the right to smoke.  And, if they live and work on a USM campus, we must find a way to accommodate to their needs and desires.  At the same time, we must find ways for others on campus to be able to avoid smoke clouds.  The best way to do this is to establish a realistic and respectful plan that allows students and community members to smoke in designated areas that are covered for the rain and snow in heavy-traffic parts of campus and allows students to smoke freely in less-trafficked parts of campus, away from building entrances.  Without these accommodations, smokers will return the campus community with the same disrespect afforded to them.  And the identified problem will remain.

Tuition freeze warming up

Monday , Governor O'Malley stood with Senators Cardin and Mikulski at Bowie State University, explaining that the federal stimulus package would allow for greater investment in community colleges and for full-funding of a fourth year of an in-state, undergraduate tuition freeze.  The dedication of federal stimulus dollars seemed to seal the deal a fourth tuition freeze...

But on Tuesday , Governor O'Malley instead sat with Budget Secretary Eloise Foster, legislative leaders, and budget analysts, explaining that revenue estimates came in even lower than the already deflated expectations.  According to estimate, the Governor needs to fill an additional $516 million hole, tallying the total deficit to $1.1 billion.  Further layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts have been put back on the table.  And of course, funding to support a funded tuition freeze has as well.

Updates are sure to come in future days.  Recall that the Board of Regents (of which I am your student representative to) officially sets tuition rates, and will do so after the Legislative Session, which ends in mid-April.

UMCP SGA: Green Ed. for all students

Last night at its weekly Senate meeting, the UMCP SGA called on the General Education Task Force to consider Green Education as part of the general education requirement for all students.  Calling the move both intellectually and ethically engaging, the bill passed 14-2-5.  Opposition found the requirement to cumbersome for students who already struggle to graduate in four years because of the large number of required courses.  The action was highlighted in the Diamondback .

I fully support the notion, and wrote about the idea on this blog in August.  Here's a clip:

I believe that we should work to move "GreenEd" into the general education requirements of our schools--no I am not saying that we should propose more general education requirements. Yet, I believe that we should work to reform some of our general education requirements to include GreenEd. Possibly non-lab sciences or social science courses would be required to include GreenEd principles.

 Kudos to my friend Davey Rogner, the SGA Environmetal Affairs liaison for this effort and many others at UMCP this year and in past years.

Textbook Update

During my hiatus last week, a number of advancements have occurred in the realm of textbooks.  After a worthwhile hearing in the House on February 17, Delegate Rice committed to proposing significant amendments to the House version of the bill (HB 85 ) which will be submitted soon.  At the same time, the Senate Bill (SB 183) was scheduled for a Senate floor vote on Friday February 20.  Senator Middleton raised significant concerns on the floor, and first laid over the bill to Tuesday February 24.  On the floor, a number of amendments were proposed.  An amendment to change the publication timeline of textbook selections to once the order is "finalized" failed 22-24.  An amendment by Senator Astle to change "affirm and acknowledge" to "acknowledge" in section D passed 25-22.

So, the bill has passed in the Senate 45-0 in its current form.  The Senate now waits for the House to finalize the cross-filed bill.  If there are any differences in the two bills, a conference Committee will be formed.  This appears to be likely with the House adopting amendments supported by the USM Students panel, the USM, Community Colleges, Independent Colleges, MHEC, and Bookstores.

One major compromise that will likely be included is extending the publication of the textbook selection in Section G from the earlier of 1 week or the final selection to 30 days after the original selection.  The student panel testified that publication 1 week after the original selection would require bookstores to publish unfinalized information and then students could purchase wrong books.  The compromise extends this timeline to 30 days.  Do recall, at all USM schools, all selections must be posted for the Fall semester by May 1 and for the Spring semester by December 1.

This compromise, and the inclusion of Senator Astle's amendment, adequately address the main concerns that I have outlined.  I have pulled the letter from the CapWiz program at UMBC and will be working with student leaders to develop a consensus on the issue.  The Senate bill still raises issues, but the House amendments, expected from Delegate Rice, will be satisfactory and in the end, actually help students.