The Seattle Times likes to pretend that its purpose is public “service,” and has the public “good” in mind. I suppose this explains why that although the Times occasionally dabbles in local “human interest” stories—though mainly to family and friends—it seems to prefer the salacious story: Crime (especially of a sexual nature), alleged corruption, gender politics, anti-immigrant paranoia (not so much lately), and generally complaints about things that the Blethens find personally annoying. Of course, some people might consider issues of “public good” to be something more along the lines of “public service”—like pushing for solutions for issues like gentrification and how it has led to loss of low-income housing, re-segregation of schools, and out-of-control college tuition hikes for colleges. The University of Washington has seen a dramatic increase in foreign freshman students—from 2 percent in 2006 to 18 percent today; UW administrators claim that they do not “advertise,” but I don’t buy their claim that this increase is due to “word of mouth.”
How did UW come to this point? In 2011, the total university operating revenues included $318 million from the state general fund, and $369 million from the tuition payments. In the 2012 proposed budget, the state has slashed its contribution to $212 million, while tuition payments are expected to rise to $463 million. While total expenditures will decrease slightly, tuition payments will see a massive increase while Olympia continues to “downsize” its commitment to education in the state. It should be noted that UW had a total budget of $4.8 billion in 2011 and $5.6 billion proposed for 2012. All of the increase is going to the UW Health System and university research. The “fascinating” part of all of this is that twenty years ago, funding per student was $17,000; today it is $16,600 according to the UW’s 2012 budget overview. Even more troubling is that twenty years ago, 70 percent of the operating revenue came from the general fund, 30 percent was derived from tuition payments; today, that ratio has been reversed.
This past February, the New York Times printed a story on UW’s “new math.” According to the Times, the high tuition that the largely Chinese students paid—if not by wealthy parents, then subsidized by the Chinese government, or even from U.S. sources—does “according to the dean of admissions, is how low-income Washingtonians — more than a quarter of the class — get a free ride.” The NY Times claims that foreign students who take slots from U.S. residents pay three times the amount that they do. UW president Michael Young was asked if resident students could get into the school if they paid nonresident tuition: “It does appeal to me a little,” he rather cynically retorted. Young also said that it didn’t bother him “that there were now more students from other countries than from other states…’Is there any advantage to our taking a kid from California versus a kid from China?’ he said. ‘You’d have to convince me, because the world isn’t divided the way it used to be.’”
Young’s cynicism is contemptible, especially when one considers that most of these students are Chinese and will return to China with their newly-found expertise, and use to their native country’s advantage. Given that China is likely to be the U.S.’ greatest competitor both economically, militarily and as an international power player in the future, the rank stupidity and foolishness of attitudes like Young’s and UW’s in general should be apparent to all. Perhaps more cynical is the cost comparison between resident and nonresident students. Here is UW’s student cost analysis from its own website for the 2011-2012 year; the first amount is for students who “lives away from home,” the second is for students who “lives with parents,” and the third is for “non-traditional” students, such as former military personnel with education benefits or people who are in the workforce:
Annual Student Budget for Washington Residents
Tuition & Fees $10,346 $10,346 $10,346
Room & Board $9,771 $3,318 $13,812
Books & Supplies $1,035 $1,035 $1,035
Personal Expenses $2,265 $2,265 $2,265
Transportation $642 $642 $1,524
Total $24,059 $17,606 $28,982
Annual Student Budget for Nonresidents
Tuition & Fees $27,830 $27,830 $27,830
Room & Board $9,771 $3,318 $13,812
Books & Supplies $1,035 $1,035 $1,035
Personal Expenses $2,265 $2,265 $2,265
Transportation $642 $642 $1,524
Total $41,543 $35,090 $46,466
The non-resident costs are the same for both international and out-of-state students, except that international students are also expected to pay an additional $1,506 for medical insurance. The number supplied by a Seattle Times story indicated that there were 4,233 foreign students at UW. Their tuition would amount in total $117,804,390. They pay a little over $74 million more than they would if they were in-state students. That extra money would theoretically pay the tuition of 7,000 in-state students. I say theoretically, because as the table shows, tuition is only part of the equation. That additional money would in actuality pay for 4,000 students who live with their parents, or 3,000 who don’t, or 2,500 non-traditional students. This obviously does not seem to be an insignificant number; however it becomes less significant when it accounts for less than one-third of the total paid by undergraduate students, and would be about $3,700 per non-foreign student. Will this be amount that students should expect to be assessed in tuition increases? And another point: That extra amount in tuition is more likely to disappear into the overall budget, and not “help” low-income students at all.
But instead of putting state and local lawmakers feet to the fire to serve the interests of state residents first instead of importing thousands of foreign students to “fix” the problem for them, what does the Times—whose head Blethen is “worth” $650 million, and whose business receives millions in tax breaks from the state—considers to be a useful approach to put a band aid on annual state cuts in education spending, the difference to be put on the backs of students, and not, say, pay freezes for faculty? Opposing I-1098, the proposed income tax on those at the far end of the wealth curve (like the Blethens) sponsored by William Gates, Sr. The Times’ cynical editorial board made every effort to misrepresent the initiative, insinuating that once the precedent of an income tax was instituted, it was only a matter of time before everyone was paying the tax. Not surprisingly, paranoid, provincial, short-sighted people took this bait hook, line and sinker.
That was then; what about today? Nothing seems to have changed. After months of putting forth “questions” that have already been answered, the Times’ editorial board has finally come right out with it: They oppose the arena deal put forward by Chris Hansen, and recommend that the city and county councils reject it. In their latest editorial on the subject, the Times is shockingly cynical about what they believe to be the Hansen’s motives. “Hedge funds and hedge-fund managers exist to neutralize risk. Their own. The instinct is alive and well in the proposed Sodo sports-and-entertainment arena that relies on public funds and public risk…The glittering offer should be turned down with a resolute ‘no thanks.’ San Francisco hedge-fund manager Chris Hansen represents himself and private investors, not the city or its taxpayers.”
We’ve heard from Kate Reilly, the so-called editorial board editor, refer to her board as the “adults” in the room. And we’ve heard from Bruce Ramsey, whose lazy observations sound like they come from someone who did more than just sit at the bar during Fox News’ “Happy Hour.” The problem is adults don’t engage in juvenile name-calling or refrain from critical thinking. Hansen is a native of Seattle, and was a Sonics fan; it obviously pained him more than those people on the editorial board that team left town. Why should we doubt what he sees as a civic “duty” to bring the NBA back? Of course he wants to make money off the project—but so does the city. Nor does Hansen’s plan “rely” on public funds or risk; according to the memoranda of agreement, Hansen and his backers own money will shield the city from any “risk.” The Times’ objection is based solely on lack of trust at best, nothing more. At worst, the board is acting like contrarians because they just want to be noticed.
The Times’ editorial mocks the concept of fairness or even common sense. Take the following two paragraphs:
“If the emotionally appealing plan to return professional basketball to Seattle, and maybe lure a National Hockey League team, is such a sure thing, then finance it all privately. Take any public money, credit or risk out of the investment equation.”
And
“Even private financing cannot make up for a basic flaw in the proposal: a fundamentally bad location near the Port of Seattle and the city's industrial area.” The Times goes on to quote an opponent from the Washington State Transportation Commission, whose complaints have already been found to be wanting and purely self-serving.
Now, first the Times suggests that if the arena project was entirely privately funded, they might not have a problem with that. But a sports arena is not your corner grocery store, and it isn’t the city-subsidized symphony, opera or ballet houses that inspire less interest combined than an NBA team. A “luxurious amenity” is not merely for the benefit of a few rich guys but for everyone who attends events at the arena. The city benefits from national exposure for their sports franchises, and is point of civic pride, which seems to be sorely lacking on the board. If the city benefits (not just in pride, but in jobs created and tax revenues) they should be expected to have at least a small stake in its success. The second part of the argument goes on to suggest that even if Hansen and his backers paid for everything, the Times would find other reasons to oppose the project; the board obviously doesn’t realize that its credibility (and that of NIMBYs ) is by now shot. This is made manifest as the editorial goes on with vague insinuations that are no more substantive than personal opinions and “feelings.”
The Times doesn’t even bother to back-up its opinions with facts and evidence, just surprisingly curious comments like “Other questions do not get enough attention, such as the region's capacity to support more professional sports. The competition for scarce dollars means winners and losers for attendance and luxury suites among the sports franchises and their facilities. Someone is going to lose, and bowed to bets.” It sounds to me like the Times’ doesn’t want to give residents a choice. How arrogant and conceited is the Times editorial board to presume to know what people want? The people are not children who have to be “told” what that is. The Times’ conceit was so great that out of over 1500 comments in response to the editorial, it chose to highlight the ones that genuflected to its opinion.
The Seattle Times cynicism to both solutions to the state’s problems and the efforts of private individuals to address them is what must be expected from a newspaper that has no competition. I always felt that when the Post-Intelligencer folded, it was the wrong paper that did so. It seemed to me that P-I represented the so-called “progressive” spirit of the city—but then again I have always detected the taint of narcissism here, which I think is also part of the Times’ personality. With so many other news outlets available, especially online, do we actually need the Times? After all, what is a city newspaper if not a point of civic pride, like this new arena it so vehemently opposes? If we don’t need the arena, why do we need a newspaper whose sees its “civic” duty in the same light as a supermarket tabloid—you know, the kind that warns readers that Barack Obama is actually an alien from space who represents the advance guard of an upcoming invasion of the Earth that will occur after he is reelected?
No comments:
Post a Comment