Two ideas under discussion in North Carolina would make it more difficult for legal residents of the state to be admitted to the University of North Carolina — or at least significantly increase the cost to taxpayers of the students to be enrolled.

The first is a bill before the state Senate to extend in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants and other noncitizens. Senate Bill 987, currently before committee, would amend the General Statutes to extend resident tuition status to any “individual who (i) has attended school in North Carolina for at least four consecutive years and (ii) has received a high school diploma from a school within North Carolina or has obtained a general education diploma (GED) issued in North Carolina.”

Sponsored by Sen. Eric Reeves, D-Wake, and cosponsored by Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson; Sen. Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., R-Cabarrus; and Sen. Jeanne H. Lucas, D-Durham, the bill is similar to last year’s failed Senate Bill 812. That bill, introduced by Sen. William N. Martin, D-Guilford, would have required illegal immigrants to have only two years’ attendance at a N.C. high school and a diploma in order to qualify for in-state tuition. Lucas is the only one among SB 987’s sponsors to have also sponsored last year’s measure.

In late May, Hispanic activists protested outside the General Assembly in favor of the measure.

The issue of granting undocumented individuals resident tuition levels is before several state legislative bodies, and it has been passed by some states, including California and Texas. The issue was quashed in Virginia in November 2002 when the attorney general, Jerry W. Kilgore, issued a memo stating that Virginia’s public colleges and universities should not admit illegal immigrants and should reserve their slots for legal residents and taxpayers.

In November 2001, officials at the City University of New York reversed a long-standing policy giving illegal immigrants access to in-state tuition rates. CUNY’s vice chancellor for legal affairs, Frederick P. Schaffer, said the policy violated federal immigration law. The New York legislature later voted to extend in-state tuition back to illegal immigrants who attended high school in New York for two years and applied for admission in a public New York institution within five years of receiving a diploma.

The federal immigration law that CUNY’s vice chancellor argued the policy violated was passed in 1996. It reads in part, “An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state (or political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

During the deliberations in Texas, Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Houston, drew activists’ fire for criticizing the idea. “Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever?” she asked in the El Paso Times in March of this year. “It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight from the pit of hell. And it’s cleverly disguised as having a tender heart. It’s ripping the heart out of this country.”

Riddle’s criticism of that idea was characterized as “immigrant bashing” and “culturally insensitive” by Hispanic lawmakers quoted in the Houston Chronicle.

Fewer NC students at UNC-CH?

The second idea under discussion was first proposed in UNC-CH’s newly released academic plan, now before the university’s trustees. It urges trustees to “Reassess the implications of the 18 percent cap on undergraduate out-of-state students.” If the trustees agree, they would have to gain the UNC Board of Governors’ approval, then be accepted by the legislature, for the proposal to become policy.

According to the UNC-CH plan, the state’s current cap “is more restrictive and rigid compared with those governing UNC-Chapel Hill’s peer campuses.” Worse, some of the brightest students in N.C. go out-of-state for a college education. As a result, “the University must decline admission to thousands of exceedingly bright out-of-state applicants whose presence on campus would add to the geographic, intellectual, artistic, and cultural diversity of the student population, as well as offset the ‘brain drain’ of North Carolina talent to other states.” UNC-CH wants “relief from the current out-of-state enrollment cap.”

In an interview with The News & Observer of June 2, UNC Board of Trustees chairman Tim Burnett said the cap should be raised to “25 percent.”

Burnett laid out several cases for raising the out-of-state enrollment cap. He said that an “effective argument with the legislature” would be if UNC made the case based on “the diversity factor,” meaning increasing the proportion of out-of-state students would “enrich greatly” the education “experience” of those N.C. students who do gain admission to UNC-CH by that diversity. Burnett noted also that “we have 15 other campuses that provide a baccalaureate curriculum, so everyone’s not going to get into Chapel Hill.”

Burnett also cited the familiar justification that “our education system is the best economic engine we have” and that “the brainpower of our citizens is the future of this state” in order to make the case for “giv[ing] them [sic — the antecedent is ‘our citizens’ although the intent is clearly ‘UNC-CH students’] the best education we can.”

The latter justification seems almost at odds with Burnett’s third justification, in which he argued “we have a lot of alumni who are living elsewhere and doing well and wanting their children to do well” (emphasis added). This argument was the money factor, especially “[a]t a time when we’re relying on more private money.” Because “we have to turn [children of those out-of-state alumni] away from Carolina,” Burnett said, “that makes it kind of hard to get them to stroke a pen across a check.”

Burnett added, “We’re not talking about an alumna with a dimwitted child” but “students who would raise the bar for everyone.”

That sentiment animated the editorial in The Daily Tar Heel of May 29. Editorial writer Jeff Silver wrote that despite UNC-CH Chancellor James Moeser’s vision of making UNC-CH “the best public university in the nation” (Moeser’s words), “the well-read annual U.S. News & World Report rankings… have not provided Moeser with any evidence that his plan is working, with UNC-CH hovering at fifth place among public universities for years.” Silver continued, “So how can UNC-CH move up, both in the magazine’s rankings and in general?”

The answer: “The UNC-system Board of Governors must allow the University to increase the number of out-of-state students it enrolls each year,” Silver writes. “First and foremost, the excellence of the student body is hampered significantly by the 18 percent cap.”

Raising the out-of-state enrollment cap from 18 to 25 percent, however, is essentially the same as lowering the in-state enrollment “cap” from 82 to 75 percent. It would effectively be a real cut in in-state enrollment. For UNC-CH’s in-state enrollment (the total number of in-state students) not to decline under that change, it would have to increase its overall enrollment by at least 9 1/3 percent.

Cutting in-state enrollment would also appear counter to one of the key issues behind the higher education bond issue: a pending enrollment increase in N.C. For example, the Sept. 15, 2000, N&O quoted UNC President Molly Broad telling Rotarians in High Point about the bond issue: “But this is not as much about bricks and mortar as it is about providing opportunity for your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and fueling the economy of North Carolina.” Also, a pro-bond brochure entitled “Higher Education: Shaping North Carolina’s Future,” published by the UNC-CH Office of Government Relations and NCFEO, said the bond would “enable Carolina to welcome a possible enrollment increase of 5,000 new students over the next ten years.”

As for the UNC-CH report’s concern about “brain drain” and having to turn away “exceedingly bright out-of-state applicants” because of the current cap, the DTH of April 1 reported that Steve Farmer, senior associate director of admissions, described UNC-CH’s incoming freshman class as “the strongest academically in University history.”

Sanders is a policy analyst at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy and assistant editor at Carolina Journal.