Free speech Friday

(in response to an e-mail from a Daily staffer expressing concern about rising tuition)

The subject of tuition is a complicated one and understandably of concern to students and their families. Therefore, let me try to explain some of the issues you raise in your message.

First, there are two primary sources of revenue that support the University’s core educational program, and you have identified them both: the amount the University receives from the State General Fund, or what we refer to as the state appropriation, and tuition. The combination of these two revenue sources is what we use to pay the faculty who teach our students and to provide much of the infrastructure that enables them to do their work. When you compare the amount of core educational funding that we receive with the amount received by our peer institutions (i.e., public universities in states that Gov. Chris Gregoire has identified as being comparable to Washington) you will find that our per-student funding from these two sources is substantially less. In fact, we spend about $4,000 less for each student than the average of these peer universities. This is a very significant gap and is a measure actually of how underfunded we are as a university.

We have two ways to remedy this situation, and they are not mutually exclusive. We can ask for and receive more funding from the state — and we work hard at this every biennium — and we can increase tuition. The state recognizes the relationship between what it provides in funding and what students and their families are asked to pay. That is why they permit universities to increase tuition for resident undergraduates up to a certain limit. This year, that limit specified by the Legislature is 7 percent, or the $400 you reference. This increase will yield approximately $8.4 million more for the University to fund the ever-increasing costs of providing your education — costs such as library materials, equipment, salaries for faculty and teaching assistants, energy costs and all of the various services we need to provide students with a high-quality education here.

You mention the University’s endowment fund as a potential source of revenue, and it is. But endowment funds are mostly gifts donors have made to the University over many years that have been designated for specific purposes. They are intended to last forever, which is why we invest them and spend only a portion of the annual yield of the invested funds, usually about 5 percent. Here’s how this works: Say, for example, a donor gives us a gift to fund a professorship in the business school. That gift, which may be for $1 million, will fund the professorship forever. We will spend annually only 5 percent of it, or $50,000. The same is true for endowed scholarship gifts — when donors give a scholarship as an endowed gift, they want it to support students today as well as 10 and 20 years from now. Thus, we spend the annual yield on the endowment, but not the principal. That is why the University has an endowment of about $2 billion. In actuality, only 5 percent of it is spent each year, or about $100 million on hundreds of specified purposes, from the medical school to professorships to student scholarships. In fact, as part of our fundraising campaign, we have been trying to raise more money this year for student scholarships to help us fund the Husky Promise program. This is the new program we announced last year that enables students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds to attend the University tuition-free. Students who qualify are receiving Pell Grants or State Need Grants. Currently, about 20 percent of undergraduates — or 5,500 students — are paying no tuition. We are working hard to keep it this way.

I hope this helps explain some of the issues surrounding tuition and what endowed funds can do for the University. It is an important issue for students and their families to understand as the pressure to increase tuition continues.

— Mark Emmert, president, University of Washington

(in response to “The GI Bill needs beefing up,” by Ryan Morden, May 23)

I am an Army veteran and I want to thank you. I have been struggling, often alone, to make people understand how our administration is not supporting our troops in general, especially in the cases of the GI Bill and medical care. Personally, I am in still going into debt in my attempt to finish my degree, even with the use of my GI Bill.

When citizens become soldiers, they give up many of their rights and must often neglect their own personal morality. Regardless of the lack of responsibility and morality of our politicians, soldiers must follow their orders. We, as soldiers, will always suffer when our leaders act out of self-interest and fear-mongering. It is sad that politicians can send us to war, risking our livelihood and that of our families, and then neglect us at home. If our politicians fail to protect the rights and interests of our nation and our nation’s servicemen and -women, then it is up to us, the citizens, to take a stand and act with responsibility and compassion. You have done this, Ryan. I, and the soldiers currently fighting, appreciate it.

In the past, President George W. Bush also promised to veto a bill giving enlisted soldiers a better pay raise in response to higher inflation. I want you to be aware that there have been many times that he has forgotten us. But he no longer plays golf. That makes it all better.

— Adam Henry, junior,

Pre-social studies