Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Wednesday, January 17, 2001UH tuition increases
should be approvedThe issue: The University of Hawaii administration is again proposing tuition increases.
REBUFFED last year, the University of Hawaii administration is trying again to raise tuition. The Board of Regents, which rejected the proposed increases last year -- evidently intimidated by student protesters -- should face up to its responsibilities and approve the increases this time.
The administration wants to raise raise tuition from 1 percent to 3.5 percent each year for the next five years. The plan would raise the cost of one year of undergraduate tuition at UH-Manoa for Hawaii residents from the current $3,024 to $3,504 by 2006. The national average for tuition and fees for four-year public universities is $3,362. Students in UH professional schools would face larger increases.
The University of Hawaii has been called one of the best bargains in U.S. higher education. That is a good reputation to have, but it comes at a price if it means a sacrifice in the quality of education. If the university expects the taxpayers of the state to support the institution, students (and their parents) have to be willing to do their share. That means accepting reasonable tuition increases.
Governor Cayetano commented that the regents "didn't have the guts" to approve the proposed increases last year in the face of student demonstrators. A lot of legislators and taxpayers may feel the same way -- and are likely to be less sympathetic to UH funding requests.
The regents' vote could have been interpreted as a lack of confidence in President Kenneth Mortimer, who subsequently announced he was leaving.
The administration plans to discuss the proposal with students before bringing it before the regents in March. However, this should not be interpreted as conceding that student approval is required. Nobody likes to pay more and no student is going to cheer about this. It's purely a matter of self interest.
That's why students don't get to make decisions about how much they pay. But the regents must.
Meanwhile the UH faculty union is becoming impatient with the Cayetano administration's stonewalling of its demands for pay raises. The last contract expired in June 1999 and no negotiations have been held since November. Mortimer has told legislators that over the decade of the 1990s UH faculty salaries fell from the 60th to 80th percentile nationally to the 40th.
Relations between the governor and the union, the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, have been strained since UHPA endorsed Cayetano's opponent, Linda Lingle, in the 1998 gubernatorial election. There is talk of a strike.
A crisis may be looming for the university. If the regents again bow to student opposition to a tuition increase and the faculty strikes, the results may be devastating. And all this is happening with a president about to leave and no successor chosen.
Impeachment crisis
THE struggle to oust Joseph Estrada as president of the Philippines could turn violent following a vote in the Senate impeachment trial denying prosecutors access to bank records. Estrada has rejected repeated appeals to resign, but he should reconsider in order to avert chaos.
In response to the Senate vote, the prosecutors resigned in protest, declaring that the records were vital evidence in the case against the president and that the 11-10 vote constituted a virtual acquittal.
Their protest was taken up outside the Congress by two of the key figures in the 1986 overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos -- Cardinal Jaime Sin, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Manila, and Corazon Aquino, who was installed as president when Marcos was ousted.
The trial had been expected to end in February, but the vote on access to the bank records threw the proceedings into an unexpectedly early crisis. Prosecutors contended the records would show that Estrada had amassed $63 million in bribes and kickbacks and concealed the money under various aliases.
Months of disclosures about Estrada's corrupt ways and irresponsible neglect of his duties have convinced many Filipinos that the former movie actor must leave office, either through resignation or conviction by the Senate.
The disclosures have prompted several politicians to defect from Estrada's camp but the latest vote indicates he has retained enough support in the Senate to block a conviction in the impeachment trial.
There may yet be a chance that those senators who still support Estrada can be compelled by public opinion to turn against him. But it isn't clear whether the vote on this crucial issue can be reversed.
If the demonstrations mount, they may bring the government to a halt or provoke a military take-over. The precedent of the "people power" movement that brought down Marcos is still fresh in many minds.
In 1986 the Philippine Congress had a chance to seek an orderly transition of power by declaring Corazon Aquino the winner of a snap presidential election. Instead it ignored evidence of blatant cheating and declared Marcos the winner -- precipitating the events that led to his overthrow.
Now the Congress has an opportunity to get rid of another corrupt leader but seems to be balking. This time the response to a missed opportunity to stand up for democracy may not be confined to peaceful protest.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
Frank Bridgewater, Acting Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
