Should UNC-Chapel Hill get special treatment?

That's what Jay Schalin argues for today on the opinion pages of the News & Observer.

Schalin, who writes for the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, suggests today that, given the state's dire budget circumstances, Carolina get some extra flexibility from state regulations.

Essentially, Schalin proposes that UNC-CH get less state money but take less of a budget hit. In exchange, it can be freed to raise tuition higher and generate more of its own revenue.

GASP! Raise tuition higher? At the people's university?

Yes, Schalin writes.

Chapel Hill could do this, he argues, because its students are wealthier on average than most public university students, and its fundraising machine is far better than any other across the state system.

The core of Schalin's argument is that Carolina is demonstrably different - and better - than other public universities and should be treated as such.

He writes in part:

"The campus is different from the other UNC schools. It has a Nobel Prize winner on the faculty and its students regularly win Rhodes Scholarships. Its incoming freshmen average between 125 to 450 points higher than its UNC system counterparts on combined math and reading SAT scores. In many ways it resembles Duke or Wake Forest more than other UNC schools."

It's an interesting idea and not one I've heard floated - at least publicly - by anyone associated with the university.

So what do you think?

On Nov. 15, Duke President Richard Brodhead wrote a letter to students, urging better behavior and a broader embrace of values and good behavior.

It was an unusual move. Students aren't accustomed to hearing from their president or being gently chided by him.

The letter was far from scathing. Prompted by a succession of embarrassing incidents, it suggested that Duke's image was being distorted but asked students to "face up" to behavior they feel isn't appropriate.

Was Brodhead being a strong leader by sending this letter? No way, argues Jay Schalin of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Writing on the Pope Center's website today, Schalin interprets Brodhead as being irritated rather than outraged by the misbehavior of some of his curent and former students.

He writes in part:

The email does not convey a deep concern by Brodhead for the students’ self-destructive behavior, but rather his irritation that their antics are getting in the way of the school’s image. Nor is there any outraged call for serious culture change on campus—just a timid suggestion that students change their ways. And it demonstrated a lack of leadership; his administration should be out in front on this issue, not merely willing to “cooperate with you [the student body] fully.”

What do you think?

Click here for some background and to read the entire letter.
 

In late May, budget writers in the State House had the rather audacious notion to suggest a 1 percent cap on enrollment in 2011-12 at the state's public universities.

It would be, they said, an attempt to get a better handle on what had become an overly difficult task of predicting enrollment growth and funding.

The idea was met in gasps by UNC system supporters who saw it as a direct attack on the state's long held belief in the importance of access to education. Capping enrollment, they argued, would mean turning young North Carolinians away, and that is a restriction of access.

Not so much, argues Jay Schalin with the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Writing today on the Pope Center's website, Schalin suggests that universities limit access all the time simply by selecting some applicants and turning others away.

Further, Schalin says a cap would make sense in strict financial terms. With the state still struggling, the cap would ease the strain.

 "It represents a common sense approach for dealing with a changing reality, one in which the state government must limit spending or risk bankrupting the state," Schalin writes. "The UNC system has long been on the receiving end of the legislature's generosity in good times, sometimes excessively so. This year, acknowledging that this must change, Ray Rapp, the chairman of the House education appropriations committee, said that there cannot continue to be an "open checkbook " for UNC's growth."

You can read Schalin's entire piece here.

The proposed cap was not approved.

An interesting op-ed in today's News & Observer written by Jay Schalin and Jenna Robinson over at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Schalin and Robinson tackle the ongoing deliberations over tuition hikes at the state's public universities and what should be done with revenue raised from them.

Under current state law, tuition hike revenue would go into the state's coffers for general use. This use, a departure from the historical practice of leaving revenue on each campus, was mandated last year because the state needed the cash.

But now, UNC system leaders are lobbying to get that money back. They say campuses know how best to use that revenue and need it. Bad.

Here's where Schalin and Robinson take issue: The UNC system says it would use half of revenue raised from tuition hikes for need-based financial aid, the idea being that if tuition has to rise, more money should be set aside to help those students paying more.

But Schalin and Robinson say putting that much revenue aside disproportionately aids low-income students while hurting the many middle-class students who fall into that area where they don't qualify for adequate aid but still need help paying for college.

It is, they argue, "a classic case of wealth redistribution."

What do you think? Here's their essay.

UPDATE - The student group Youth for Western Civilization is back in business, having found three new faculty advisors.

The faculty advisor for a controversial student group at UNC Chapel Hill was relieved of his volunteer duties last week after an ill-advised remark about a gun.

But in insisting that retired professor Elliot Cramer step down as advisor for Youth for Western Civilization, UNC-CH Chancellor Holden Thorp has empowered campus radicals who now pledge to disrupt any event that group presents on campus.

So says Jay Schalin, writing this week for the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

In asking for Cramer to step down, Thorp in essence hamstrung the student group's ability to exist, since the clock is now ticking towards a deadline before which it must have a new faculty advisor.

Schalin writes in part:

Thorp can amend this error by making bold statements that he will not let legitimate opinions on his campus be harassed into silence. One thing he could do is to sponsor the YWC himself, at least for this year. That would send a powerful message to the radicals that his campus is a place for free expression of ideas, not group intimidation and violence.

Additionally, he must make it clear that attempts to intimidate and silence others on campus will be met with expulsion and prosecution. For without a very clear no-tolerance policy of such behavior, the radicals will grow continually more aggressive until they get their way or until somebody gets hurt. And if they get their way, they will use the same methods to silence other voices that disagree with them.

What do you think? Did the chancellor overstep in asking Cramer to step down for a remark that appears to be made in jest?

N.C. State University's Millennium Seminars Series routinely brings in big names to speak on campus. The latest was former President Bill Clinton, who spoke Monday at Reynolds Coliseum.

The series has proven popular. But now, a right-leaning Raleigh thinktank charges that the seminar is essentially a platform for the espousing of liberal ideas. 

Jay Schalin, with the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, likens the series to a one-sided argument. The series is coordinated by former First Lady Mary Easley, who, you may recall, was the subject of a good bit of controversy last year when she received a substantial pay raise from NCSU.

He writes in part:

"Many in the academic establishment deny that any ideological bias exists on the American campus, but the numbers tell a story of deliberate imbalance. There have been five speakers strongly identified with the Democratic Party or liberal opinions, all appearing since October of 2007, and only two relatively liberal Republican speakers (both appearing early in the fall semester of 2006).

It is hard not to raise the question whether, in this case, the state’s currently dominant political party is using its advantage to essentially silence the opposition on this state-supported campus by simply not offering them a voice. Without a more balanced slate of speakers, students are being cheated out of exposure to the full range of opinions and the chance to make up their own minds."

Read Schalin's entire column here.

The staff over at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy have a few Christmas wishes related to colleges and universities this year.

The Raleigh non-profit institute is routinely critical of higher education and the UNC system in particular. In this series of Christmas wishes, the center's four staffers offers up some advice.

A few highlights:

• Students at all universities should, before graduating, be required to take tests in English competence, basic math and American history.

• Universities should eliminate "free speech zones" and restore free speech everywhere on college campuses - especially in the classroom.

• Someone within the UNC system should acknowledge what Pope Center staff member Jay Schalin deems an "ideological imbalance" on campuses and the "leftward drift" of the state's education schools.