Search

Following is the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that the University of Wisconsin at Madison does not violate the First Amendment rights of students when it uses their [...]

IMMIGRANT BAN: Public colleges in Missouri would be required to certify that they had not knowingly admitted illegal immigrants before receiving financial support from the state under a measure moving [...]

Byline: SARA HEBEL Year after year, Steve Munch has watched his tuition bill at the University of Kansas increase by double-digit percentages. He wants state policy makers to do something [...]

The US Supreme Court is being petitioned by colleges, student organizations and 15 states to overturn a federal appeals court decision prohibiting the use of student fees to fund campus groups and events with political or ideological themes. The petitioners claim that campus diversity would be compromised if the fees were not used for these activities. Opponents, however, claim political use of student fees violates First Amendment rights of students who do not support the ideals expressed by certain groups.

Congress passed tax and spending legislation in Jun 1997 that would provide between $31 billion and $32 billion in tax breaks to college students and their families, and cut about $1.8 billion in administration costs from federal student loan programs. The House passed both its tax and spending measures, while the Senate approved a spending bill and had a tax bill pending. President Clinton and congressional Democrats claim that both tax measures fall short of the amount of education-related tax relief agreed to in the balanced budget deal struck between Clinton and Republican congressional leaders.

State legislatures debate on the viability of high tuition-high financial aid plans. Its proponents state that the additional revenue generated by higher tuition fees can provide more financial help to students who cannot afford increased costs. However, critics contend that this set-up will only work if there are more high-income students than low-income ones. Moreover, further economic downturns and political use of financial-aid funds will only worsen the situation. It may cause upper- and middle-income students to flock to private colleges while daunting needy students from pursuing a college degree.

A PA Supreme Court ruling which states that divorced parents may not help pay their children's college tuition sent many talented college students and their mothers to file petitions or call the state congress for help. Petitioners usually have sad stories to tell about shattered dreams and abandoned college education since non-custodial fathers stop paying bills in the midst of their children's studies.

California lawmakers are considering two bills that would cap tuition at the state's public universities and link future increases to changes in per capita income. Legislators in Washington state rejected a similar indexing plan in May 1997. Iowa has followed such a tuition-indexing policy since 1990. Lawmakers are increasingly proposing tuition-indexing as a response to the public perception that tuition costs rise too high and too rapidly. Administrators claim that unless tuition-indexing is linked to guaranteed levels of state funding for higher education, it is unfair to universities and colleges.

Both Oregon and Texas are mulling legislation that would charge college students non-resident fees for units earned in excess of graduation requirements. State officials argue that 'professional' students prevent others from getting an education. Although boards of higher education in both states estimate that such students comprise only 1% of the total student population, charging them non-resident fees would generate millions of dollars. The Oregon bill has a better chance of passing.