Officials say provision doesn't usurp system

Despite a public outcry about a provision in the state budget that would grant tuition autonomy to UNC-Chapel Hill and N.C. State University, officials maintain that the move would not be destructive to either the UNC system or tuition debates.

Records indicate that UNC-CH officials traded e-mails with Senate leaders and reviewed the provision line by line before it reached the Senate floor.

Even so, Chancellor James Moeser has declined to take a stance on the provision and officials have maintained that they looked at the legislation at the request of senators.

Both Moeser and Provost Robert Shelton said allowing the UNC Board of Trustees to set tuition would not change the process.

“If that provision were to be passed, I’m confident that the Board of Trustees would exercise a very responsible policy with regard to tuition,” said Moeser.

Although he said the Board of Governors would do the same, he did say the body historically has been more reluctant to improve increases.

The reluctance was highlighted this year when Brad Wilson, chairman of the Board of Governors, called for a freeze on in-state tuition.

BOT members, who recommended a $200 hike for in-state students, expressed frustration when the request was denied.

Moeser reiterated the concern to UNC-system President Molly Broad in an e-mail in April, alerting her of the provision.

“As you know, there was widespread consternation on the BOT over the decision of the BOG to disregard the campus process and BOT recommendation on tuition,” he wrote.

Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand, D-Cumberland, said claims that the system would be irrevocably harmed if the provision is passed are unfounded.

“One size does not fit all,” he said.

“I think trustees are the people closest to the needs of the campus and also closest to the feelings of the students.”

Even if the trustees are granted the final say, the BOG still would have influence as they appoint eight of the 12 members of the board.

Shelton said he feels strongly that the system wouldn’t be damaged if its two major research universities were granted tuition freedom.

“Not everyone in the system has to be the same — has to be cut from the same mold,” he said.

“In fact I would argue that means you don’t have a system.”

Moeser and Shelton both stressed that tuition is only one component of funding costly research and that corporate interaction, outside funding and grants can bolster efforts.

But the fundamental issue, they say, is remaining competitive.

“It’s not about how to break up a system,” Shelton said.

“It’s about how to fund research universities.”

Contact the State & National Editor at stntdesk@unc.edu.