Last Thursday, the University of California Board of Regents approved a 32 percent increase in student fees (equivalent to tuition). For the first time ever, in-state residents will pay over $10,000 a semester in student fees, limiting the possibility of public higher education for many Californians. In a larger sense, these fee hikes signify a growing trend towards privatization, and away from public education, challenging the University of California’s core commitment to its citizens. Students have protested these fee hikes, setting an example for others across the country. In light of economic struggles at universities nationwide, Cornell should learn from the U.C.’s misfortunes as we move forth with the “reimagining campaign,” by emphasizing preventative measures and student involvement in budget cut processes.

The University of California was founded on the principle of providing an almost free college education to any resident who merits the opportunity. For $7,788 per semester last year (compared to $18,875 per semester for Cornell’s endowed colleges), a California resident could attend one the world’s leading academic and research institutions. This deal of deals has opened the door to higher education to a segment of the population who, if not for extremely low tuition rates, would likely never be able to attend a top-tier school.

Additionally, the U.C.s have served as a profound economic driver for the state, leading the world in research and innovation, particularly related to energy and technology. Yet in Berkeley’s chemistry labs — home to Nobel prize-winning research — The New York Times reports of overflowing trash cans due to a reduced maintenance schedule. If they can’t afford to take out the trash, what does the future hold for the prized jewel of American public education? Unfortunately, more serious consequences are beginning to show, as esteemed faculty are beginning to leave the U.C. system, accepting opportunities at other institutions with more resources.

The U.C. budget crisis is two-fold. There have been major salary cuts, mandated furloughs and layoffs for faculty, as well as heavy budget cuts across departments. As a result of increased class size and decreased course offerings, many students fear they won’t be able to graduate in four years. Additionally, students will endure a two-step fee increase, the first of which they will bear next semester. Given that nearly a third of Berkeley students come from low-income families, student drop-outs are imminent.

In defense of tuition hikes, the U.C. Regents are telling students that they are making a necessary and valuable investment in their future and education. In light of drastic budget cuts, though, this argument is profoundly flawed: the student fee increases will not enhance the value of their education, nor even maintain it at its current level. In effect, students will be paying more for less.

Yet, in face of a $753 million budget shortfall — compounded by the state’s $26 billion budget deficit — do the U.C. Regents have any choice?

In 2008, U.C. management salaries took up 21 percent of the U.C. budget, while only 8 percent of the budget went towards instruction. Specifically, U.C. President Mark Yudof has neglected to take a salary cut, despite his annual compensation of $828,000 — more than twice the salary of President Obama.

Furthermore, a lack of budget transparency has espoused concern over an unaccounted $5 billion in the budget. The U.C. Regents failure to address these shortcomings — at the expense of students, faculty and workers — has prompted mass protests throughout the U.C. campuses.

At Berkeley last Friday, for example, thousands of students protested the increase in tuition by barricading a campus building to the tune of, “Fee hike! We Strike!” Although arrests were made, no negotiations took place and no requests were met.

Will Heegaard, a sophomore at Berkeley who took part in the lock-in, told me, “The U.C.s should strive to be an example of how a great education can be made free. But right now, it is only an example of how a great education must be privatized in order to survive. This pressure illustrates the direction that our country is heading in terms of public services — or lack there of. And that is a problem that must be addressed as a nation.”

As Heegaard points out, the U.C. budget crisis is emblematic of university financial struggles throughout the country. More broadly, he sheds light on the debate over public and private higher education, championing the belief that education is not a privilege, but a fundamental right.

Though the budget crisis here at Cornell seems minor in comparison, Cornell too is being forced to make decisions that have the potential to undermine the University and its core principles. While nothing drastic has happened yet, we’ve already witnessed threats to the “any person, any study” principle; for example, the elimination of certain language programs.

Given Cornell’s land grant status, much of its funding is the largely at the will of the state. Therefore, the University’s livelihood and prominence is particularly at risk, differentiating its financial situation from that of the other Ivy League institutions. As a result, we must preempt a financial meltdown, and take the necessary measures to preserve the value of a Cornell degree, while also protecting students and faculty.

The University’s “reimagining” campaign signifies a step in the right direction. The recently released task force reports have generated both positive ideas for reform, such as AAP’s transformation to a “design college”; and other ideas — such as increasing student enrollment — that are more problematic and cause for concern. It is largely students’ responsibility to ensure that only the positive suggestions are implemented.

One of the biggest criticisms of the U.C. Regents is the manner in which their decisions were made — chiefly the lack of student involvement in the process. Cornell has notably taken significant strides to ensure students’ voices are being heard throughout the “reimagining” process. Numerous discussion forums have been held, and the task force reports are currently available to the public at Day Hall. Now students must hold up their end of the bargain.

Students should step up and take an active role in the decisions surrounding the future of their university. At the very least, we must stand in solidarity with the students at the University of California, and support them in our mutual goal of higher education.

Carolyn Witte is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She may be reached at cwitte@cornellsun.com. Wit’s End appears alternate Wednesdays this semester.