In recent years, members of our General Assembly have taken a keen eye toward certain programs here at UT. From the pseudo-controversy over Sex Week and our student fees, to complaints over a suggested use of gender-neutral pronouns last month, and now questioning the salaries of those who support diversity programs, some of our elected representatives are quite picky about what the state supports.
The argument is always roughly the same: state and student tax dollars shouldn’t be used on “political correctness” programs, and we are misusing funds.
If one accepts that ensuring UT is welcoming to all is a waste of money, then this makes sense. No one likes the idea of a government institution misusing public funds. However, at what point is UT still a government institution?
Last year, just 38.4 percent of the University of Tennessee system budget came from the state of Tennessee, with most of rest coming from tuition and private donations. When adjusted for inflation, state support for UT actually decreased by nearly 20 percent from 2011 to 2015. In response to slowing support for four-year universities, schools have had to sharply raise tuition to make up for the lack of money from the state. At UT, this slipping support has flipped the school’s funding model, with tuition, fees and research now making up more than half our budget, where previously it was the state of Tennessee that heavily subsidized our education.
In this situation, perhaps it is not the responsibility of state legislators to question how we spend our money, but rather the students and their families that provide the lion’s share of UT’s resources.
This is a two-way street; if the General Assembly does not adequately provide UT with the money it needs, then what right do they have to complain if we choose to hire diversity officers and encourage the use of gender-neutral pronouns?
If a parents no longer support their adult children with a roof over their head, then that parent in many ways has lost the ability to tell their daughter or son how to live her or his life.
In the same ways, a government institution that only gets a fraction of its funding from the government is limited in who it should answer to.
If certain members of the General Assembly wish to hold hearings on such small issues like our use of gender-neutral pronouns while ignoring thousands of their constituents that are entering the workforce with debt, then we must seriously question their priorities.
By not fully funding UT, the General Assembly is largely responsible for the thousands of students that take out loans to keep up with consequent tuition increases.
On Wednesday, the state Senate Higher Education Subcommittee is meeting, and UT’s diversity policy is the first item on the agenda. I will not be in Nashville, but I will be following this issue closely. Next week, we may learn whether our General Assembly actually cares about supporting UT, and how much they simply want to voice their opposition to what they perceive as problems.
No matter how one feels about gender-neutral pronouns, voicing displeasure at an issue is not enough.
Just as a football coach cannot arrive at halftime just to criticize his players, the General Assembly cannot criticize the university on matters of diversity when it does not also take responsibility for the larger issues, such as rescuing young Tennesseans from crippling student loans.
Our state made national headlines when Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam announced a way for high school graduates to attend community college for free with the Tennessee Promise. It’s a big move that, if implemented across the country, could help more people get a college degree. Now it’s time to promise the rest of Tennessee college students that they will be helped as well, by moving beyond he-said-she-said politics. Oops, my bad. Make that ze-said-ze-said.
McCord Pagan is a fifth-year senior in journalism and electronic media. He can be reached at [email protected].
