This article advocates an option in the USI funding preferendum. To vote in the preferendum, go to www.usi.ie
Jack Leahy
Governments exist to make decisions, and unions exist to lobby against any negative impact these decisions may have on their members. To mandate a national students’ union to do anything but fight for a system that balances meritocratic universality of access to higher education and the maintenance of academic standards would be ludicrous.
Cynics have so often noted the bureaucratisation of student politics in recent years. Nowadays, it’s a political suit-and-tie game in which petty sleepovers in the offices of periphery TDs don’t quite cut it when the big wigs debate at the highest level of decision-making. In its proposals and its actions, the USI must act as a credible representative of student interests.
First of all, to mandate a students’ union to propose 100% upfront fees – a measure that would actively exclude large numbers of its members from third-level education – would be to mandate the death of the credibility of the student representative movement. Does SIPTU fight for pay cuts? Would you expect a teachers’ union to look for longer days and shorter summers? Would the National Union of Turkeys vote to propose more Christmases? No union with any legitimacy proposes measures that would negatively impact large numbers of its members. It is the government’s job – and not that of the union – to weigh argued principle and interests against economic restriction. The USI must not further facilitate its own discrediting by proposing a measure that would deny access to education to so many.
This is not to say that union representation is duty-bound to self-interest and impracticality. A core principle of negotiation is that if you demand everything, you are rewarded with nothing, and so it is with some sadness that we – temporarily, at least – must also discard the idealist exchequer-funded option. Given the infamous and unprecedented economic difficulties with which the State is saddled, the quality of education offered by our third level institutions would suffer if large amounts of core state funding was re-allocated to the payment of course fees. I think students have begun to recognise this, and that’s why this preferendum is necessary.
Student loan and graduate tax systems, to sum it up, have a history of working for neither state nor student. One need look no further than Great Britain to observe an almost comical impotency to track down emigrants and the number of legal loopholes that see thousands evade payment. Not to mention that repayment almost certainly requires immediate employment after graduation because that’s when repayments begin.
There is only one feasible option, and that’s for the USI to lobby the government to fund third-level education with a balanced student contribution. I’d even be in favour of the fee rising to €3,000+ a year for some if the current practice of waiving or reducing payment for students from relatively disadvantaged economic backgrounds was extended.
This would allow for the channel of progression from secondary to third-level education to remain primarily meritocratic. For all of its flaws, the Irish education system allows most to access higher education, with places in different institutions decided on exam performance rather than family income. In the US, a student can achieve Trinity-standard grades and end up in the derided ‘community College’ scheme if they are just above the level of income necessary for scholarship application, yet well under the income band that can afford fees of $30,000+ per annum. Fees, additional taxes, and loans are financial burdens that actively close doors that this country has proudly held open for many years.
A tiered student contribution system appeals to the universal access idealism of the free fees proponents and addresses the issue of third-level funding. By increasing the student contribution and widening income-based reliefs proportionally, we would be moving towards a system that embodies the social equalisation that the free fees system falsely propounds. It allows for education to remain partially student-funded while removing some of the financial burden on lower-income but not lowest-income families. Transfer that portion of the burden to those who can carry it without creating an excessive gap.
It’s not a perfect solution, but it is the only one that can weigh student concerns of access and quality against each other and achieve equilibrium. That’s exactly what our national student union exists to do in its capacity as a political lobbyist.
The discourse is changing and free fees are dead. The student solution must, above all, protect students. If you ask the USI not to care about students, you can be damn well sure that the government will follow suit.
Vote for the student contribution and let’s move towards a decent system of access and quality.
