A flawed approach to a real problem: Equity fee should not be implemented
November 13, 2019
On Oct. 29, the Tulane Undergraduate Student Body passed a resolution 24-6 calling for the administration to institute a mandatory equity fee of $240 per student. The fee would go toward funding organizations that support marginalized groups on campus. The administration should not implement this fee.
The university unquestionably needs to do a better job of supporting marginalized communities on campus. Funding for these vital organizations is low, with negative effects predictably following for marginalized students on campus.
Though the intention of the fee is admirable, the undue financial burden it places on students and their parents is not. The passion and effort that has gone into drafting and passing this bill would be better spent encouraging the university to reallocate the already vast funds it has at its disposal, as evidenced by its numerous construction projects.
Les Griots Violets, a student coalition, is calling for Tulane to institute an equity fee — an increase in tuition that would allocate more resources to marginalized students.
Last night, USG voted in favor of the fee.https://t.co/hLhAvQikFA
— The Tulane Hullabaloo (@tulanehull) October 30, 2019
Tuition at Tulane is sky-high at $54,820 per year in tuition and fees. Fortunately, students who receive need-based financial aid would not have to pay an equity fee. Unfortunately, not everyone who does not receive need-based financial aid can afford to cough up another $240 a year.
There is a false perception that all Tulane students who would have to pay the fee are supported by rich parents, but many students are actually taking out loans and are paying their own way through college. For students who work a minimum-wage job 30 hours a week to pay their bills, for parents who scrimp and save to put their children through a prestigious school like Tulane, adding another mandatory fee is an undue burden.
In addition to this financial harm, there is something unsettling about the idea of having all students pay a fee that supports organizations which primarily benefit a small number of students. The other fees the university has – a $640 Health Center fee, a $240 student activity fee, a $360 recreation center fee – benefit all students. Not all students go to Reily, but all students have the opportunity to use Reily.
Some argue that the fee supports some organizations that are open to all students. Six percent of the money would go to the Goldman Center for Student Accessibility, and a smaller percentage goes to Religious Life.
While both the Goldman Center and religious organizations are theoretically open to all, only students who have a disability or identify as religious would use them in practice, meaning some students are still barred from the benefits of an equity fee.
https://www.facebook.com/tulanehullabaloo/posts/10157580257689847?__xts__[0]=68.ARDb9gGaxQNS9jx0g-UBLhI2K4Y_gvm3QZ8HHocKh4gFEC72llrsY1w28G9BAUVv4f_rn6yac9Skg7f8rcI0GdUTjUgge98U4nEnbJSirfZVuLPPYxUmsHVk1b8cqaFXZKcyDE4niiZbBzvoAWSMttpasMTNp1_oGOyh_n4MYwBnwmF_pxxePBH6KpOUlhEGOAIGpLU8Ezkf_xF3pZPbqQwKt_8J9Aa1Sqc6MfYjLHtSx5UcV6-Y4zBRux2eDS-QOWXoWSOaUzuHUIxofvP6il0ok2ItfqHIORVBCXgSl-3Ah67jNBBVnwj_WMki-XnzzjrF1B2sSJ-zmU7Pm5wv&__tn__=-R
Others argue all students must pay because all students indirectly benefit. The lack of diversity on campus is harmful to all, and giving organizations that support marginalized groups more money might help draw more diversity and thus help better educate students. But this goal can be accomplished by other means. Making poor college students even poorer seems like an odd way of making campus more equitable.
Even the phrasing of “equity fee” implies students who aren’t part of a marginalized group have to pay for or are somehow personally responsible for inequity. Tulane has a history of racial discrimination, the effects of which are still felt today. But the students who attend Tulane cannot be held responsible for the inequity. We can and should separate the culpability of the institution of Tulane from that of students.
The equity fee is an example of the overcorrection that can occur on college campuses. Many students are passionate about issues that have to do with discrimination and marginalization, which is wonderful and helpful but can go too far and end up causing harm. Students’ zeal would be better spent holding the university accountable rather than pressing to increase tuition.
Finally, though USG passed the bill 24-6, that does not mean it is supported by the entire student body, or even a majority of it. There is a petition, but there was no vote or widespread effort to understand whether most students support the bill. The lack of debate surrounding the USG equity bill reflects a broader issue of a lack of genuine, campus-wide discourse.
The equity fee is harmful, unjust and not necessarily reflective of the desires of the student body at large. The administration should not implement it. Instead, the administration should take the passion and zeal of the students who created and support the bill as a sign they should reallocate more funds to organizations that support marginalized communities on campus.
Eva Dils • Nov 18, 2019 at 1:10 pm
This article’s argument is ill-reasoned and ahistorical. It’s true that current Tulane students have not owned enslaved people or worked as a Brigadier General for the Confederate Army, as Randall Lee Gibson did. We have not used our father’s fortune, built on the backs of enslaved and exploited Haitians, to amass our own wealth, as Paul Tulane did. But responsibility for injustice and violence extends beyond those to blame for it – to those who benefit from it.
Exploitation, slavery, empire, and death are the sources from which Tulane’s founders, and funders, bankrolled the birth of our school. Without them, Tulane University would not exist. Tulane’s existence is a benefit to its students, at least to those of us who see our Tulane education as a net gain. Tulane students are therefore linked to our founders’ and our institution’s legacies of violence. That makes us responsible. We may choose to shirk that responsibility, but that does not pardon us. It only makes us cowards.
Essentially, this article reflects a dangerous idea: “If I didn’t personally harm someone, then why should I be responsible for repairing that harm?” This escapist mentality reflects an unrealistic, overly-individualistic worldview. But in a community conception of justice, the Equity Fee is an enormous benefit. Instead of a burden, the Equity Fee is an opportunity to address Tulane’s legacies of violence by allocating real resources to support people who’ve been those harmed by those legacies.
Anonymous Student • Nov 17, 2019 at 1:45 pm
I was not in the Senate room when this was voted on, but shouting is never the answer, no matter what identity you are. I agree with many of the points of this article. The bill is truly counterproductive–how do you attract diversity if you raise the cost of tuition (barrier to access)? As a student who lives check to check to go to Tulane, 240 does feel like a punishment. This is coming from someone who does want to see more diversity and funding for resources like the O. Also—I think it is important to note that to criticize a policy does not necessarily mean someone is a racist. A policy criticism (at least in this case) is not an attempt to silence anyone–it is critiquing a policy in an attempt to find a better solution. Calling someone a racist immediately shuts the conversation down and does no good. Just as this bill wishes to promote diversity on campus, diversity of opinion is important if we wish to enact legislation which truly encapsulates the different views within our student body. So in conclusion—the founders of our bill, I thank you for seeking a solution to a serious problem on campus. To the author of this article—thank you for critiquing it as I believe it will lead to a more productive discourse and results. And finally,—-be kind to one another!
Anonymous • Nov 16, 2019 at 9:10 am
First of all, their name is Les Griots Violets. You should probably read through your articles before you publish them. Second, your logic behind the article suggests you haven’t taken an intro sociology class (maybe you should get on that?). All students benefit from the equity fee. The money that I’d pay for the Goldman Center and religious organizations goes toward creating a more just environment for myself and my classmates, and attracts a greater diversity of students to the University. This means I’m benefitting by learning from a greater array of identities and experiences. In an increasingly globalized world, this is one of the fundamental skills required in a 21st century career. Additionally, your point that white students shouldn’t have to pay for the wrongs of previous injustices is incorrect. Seeing as though there are scholarships at this university that can ONLY BE GIVEN TO WHITE STUDENTS (Alfredo Blanco), those injustices continue to be perpetuated. I’m also the student who shouted “YOUR VOTES ARE PUBLIC” from the back of Senate. That’s because voting bodies are held responsible to their constituencies, and if you’re ashamed of how your voting will be perceived by your constituency, then it’s because you’re blatantly disregarding constituent concerns. Also, the fact that the ^^^ above comment felt “threatened” by me shouting that is only because (for the first time this year) Senate was filled with angry Black faces and you naturally see us as violent. Assuming we were going to jump you is really just you saying you don’t like Black people and see us as ready to jump you. I was there as a student who wanted to be heard and instead my Senator saw me as violent and a nuisance. You’re racist (deal with that on your own time and don’t run to your POC friends to assuage you of guilt), and that seems to be a pretty good representation of the way white Tulanians feels toward their Black and brown classmates.
Campbell, find my email on the back end of the Hull if you’d like to talk about the article. Your reporting left out critical pieces that shape up to journalistic disintegrity, and if you actually care about reporting the truth I’d love to help you rectify them.
Erin • Nov 15, 2019 at 1:52 pm
This article is laughably under researched. You might want to pull this and try again as the facts you have presented are literally just not true. It’s interesting that you speak on behalf of a student body supposedly opppsed to the bill, specifically lower income students who are marginalized when you yourself do not hold these identities or seem to have asked any of us. We were at the ISG meeting because it’s something we believe in and agree with. You saying that we neither want this fee because it is too expensive and that Tulane wiuld be better of distributing their money (which doesn’t exist in the capacity you think it does, I’d recommend fact checking literally ANYTHING abiut how University funds are distributed and how the fees are applied) is paternalistic and doesn’t allow us to speak for ourselves or have any say in where the funds need to be. The student body has spoken in VAST majority. You have no right to shout over us and silence our voices. Use your institutional privilege for good for once and fight against something useful like the pillars of white supremacy or Tulane’s hesitance to fully fund good programs that benefit the entire institution like the CEA program with the OMA and CPS or the Center for Academic Equity. Also, perhaps consider a different career path if this type of shoddy research is what you consider a final draft ready for publish.
More Bullshit • Nov 15, 2019 at 12:24 pm
What about graduate students who won’t be exempt because of need-based financial aid? We don’t use these services or these organizations. Leave us alone after we already work so hard to support ourselves and keep our heads above water paying our tuition already. The proposal is poorly written and thought out.
student • Nov 15, 2019 at 12:22 pm
So many articles could have been written about what went wrong with what should have been a wonderful concept that benefits so many marginalized students. I 100% support the concept of this bill, but i did NOT support the threatening of USG senators, the inappropriate and unprofessional behavior in senate and committees, and the removal of freedom in what is supposed to be a democratic body. In senate, senators were explicitly told “your votes will leave this room. we will know what you did”, implying that dissent would result in physical harm. Also in senate, where questions are usually encouraged or even mandated to improve bills, all questions were shut down and there were implications of racism at what were actually standard questions. Furthermore, the EVP attempted to have voting be a raised placard instead of a remote vote, as it usually is. It is clear that the vote was not a genuine reflection of what the senate actually wanted and that dissent would have resulted in threats to students. And furthermore, these things were removed from the minutes!!!! IT IS 100% VALID TO HAVE ISSUES WITH THE EXECUTION OF AN IDEA. A bill of this importance should NOT have been rushed as it was, and attempts to make it a better version should NOT have been called racist. Revisions are a part of the process. tea.
Jax B • Nov 15, 2019 at 12:18 pm
Would the fee be imposed on graduate students? We would not be exempt under need-based aid. It is discriminatory for those already struggling to put ourselves through school to add to the struggle we already have in paying our tuition for services that aren’t even for us. The whole proposition is poorly thought out and written. Graduate students must be left out.
Anonymous • Nov 15, 2019 at 12:11 pm
YES! Thank you for saying this. The equity fee adds to an already monumental issue on Tulane’s unfair treatment of low income students. This is not the solution to long-term diversification – it’s the opposite. It’s furthering the unfair treatment of low income students, those putting themselves through college, etc. Tulane will continue to be rooted in privilege when you add more fees and further the burden on low income or impoverished students.