Imagine
walking through a California public school and hearing the voices of
students singing "I am special" to the tune of "Frere Jacques." One
might look through the classroom window expecting to see kindergartners
about to enjoy Graham crackers and milk — or perhaps a more
politically correct snack.
Now back to real life, where singing choruses of self-affirming music,
such as "I Am Special" is part of the curriculum in a college course
called "Self Esteem" taught at CSU Fresno.
Students preferring to attend UCLA can enroll in a class on electronic
dance music that explores "the political and cultural implications of
the relentless hedonism of the dance floor." And at UC Berkeley, they
can take a course entitled, "Sex Change City: Theorizing History in
Genderqueer San Francisco" where they learn all about "the regulation
of gender-variant practices in public space by San Francisco’s
Anglo-European elites."
These are just examples of real college courses funded with real tax dollars.
As California faces an unprecedented budget crisis, students at
California colleges have been asked to pay a greater share of the total
cost of their education, most of which is still borne by taxpayers.
California students pay the lowest community college tuition rates in
the nation, and taxpayers pay 60-70% of the cost of CSU and UC
students’ education, without even counting financial aid.
The response to proposed tuition increases has been mass protests by
thousands of angry students, and a bill by Assemblyman Alberto Torrico
to impose an "oil severance tax," — essentially a gas tax that anyone
who drives will be forced to pay — to contribute to higher education
subsidies.
Assemblyman Torrico cites the need for a "highly-skilled and
well-trained workforce," as a reason we all should pay more for
gasoline. But already overburdened California taxpayers are starting
to ask why they are expected to subsidize the nonsense masquerading as
"education" on so many of our campuses?
Let’s be clear, the issue here is not academic freedom. The issue is
what taxpayers should be expected to fund. If there are students who
want to take courses simply for the purpose of personal fulfillment,
should working Californians be compelled to pay for these classes, or
should this be the responsibility of those "experiencing" the
instruction?
While Torrico is correct that a well educated workforce drives economic
growth, "well educated" must be defined not merely as a workforce
comprised of individuals who have attended college classes, but
individuals who are equipped to fill 21st century jobs. After all, it
is these working Californians who will pay the taxes that will allow
those who follow to receive a discounted education.
As taxpayers, we deserve to know whether we are receiving a worthwhile
return on our higher education investment. It’s about time that
administrators at our state colleges and universities are held
accountable. The next governor could provide a major service to
taxpayers by demanding a thorough impartial review to determine which
programs and courses provide the greatest bang for taxpayers’ bucks.
As for the fees students must pay to attend a public college, if this
gives a young person a nudge into the workforce they will graduate far
better prepared due to this real world experience. Additionally these
students will be much more likely to demand that they receive something
of value in return for their money. They will become allies of
taxpayers putting pressure on administrators to keep costs down while
providing useful curriculums.
California taxpayers are "special" too. They deserve a decent return on their higher education investment.