Daniel Scarpinato Columnist

Two years ago, student lobbyists pounded it hard to regents and administrators. "No tuition increase!" they exclaimed. That was nothing new. After all, students had rejected tuition increases for years.

But the context in which the tuition debate of 2002 was set was a bit more complicated - Sept. 11 and failing state and national economies resulted in major budget cuts to the university.

In April of that year, the students who fought for what they label a "zero percent tuition increase" were smeared by UA administrators after regents rejected President Peter Likins' relatively steep increase proposal and upped the cost by less than $100 to appease him. Administrators claimed that regents, under the influence of aggressive student lobbying, had damaged the university by denying the funds it needed to flourish.

Whether you think tuition should have gone up more or stayed the same that year is moot. What's a fact is that student lobbyists appeared to be politically powerful in front of regents. They had a clear message: No tuition increase. End of story.

Did they get their zero percent increase? Of course not. But they knew they wouldn't. Just like Likins knew he wouldn't get what he wanted.

They were politicking and doing a successful job at it. We knew that because administrators were so annoyed at them. There was an unambiguous purpose for having lobbyists because their position was completely counter to the other side.

This year, one wonders if the lobbyists played any role at all. Their stance was almost identical to administrators' and their voices were quiet, calling into question their very existence.

That's not to trump their stance itself. J.P. Benedict was completely upfront when he ran for president about his tuition intentions. He has been blunt the entire time since and stood by his principles - he favored a tuition increase, and he got it. No surprise there. In addition, the student body is responding differently to these last couple increases. They don't mind them all that much.

Most students are realizing just how cheap their tuition was and concede that $3,998 isn't much different from $3,508. But what would be the purpose, for example, of the National Rifle Association spending millions on lobbying if Charlton Heston were president of the United States and Congress was loaded with gun lovers? Its agenda would be set.

Administrators, regents and student leaders are for the most part in agreement on the appropriate cost of tuition and might remain so for some time. So why bother coming out with all these different proposals and spending months speculating about something no one cares much about and everyone involved agrees on? Last year, Doug Hartz was praised for the work he did in supposedly building a bridge between students and administrators.

Without doubting the sheer amount of time and commitment Hartz put into the tuition-setting process, perhaps the approach he formulated did more harm than good. By becoming so "diplomatic" with the UA's top brass, student leaders may have sacrificed some of their influence in the process. And this year, they seemed to forfeit all that was left. Sure, Benedict and his crew might argue that their tuition plan would have worked better than Likins', but behind the jargon, we all know the plans were essentially the same. When it's all boiled down, students don't really care much about the cost of tuition. And why should they? Most don't pay; their parents do.

This year in particular, the tuition issue seemed to become a nonissue, with student leaders simply going through the motions because they were expected to.

Since few students seem to care much and lobbyists lack the spark and political savvy they once had, maybe we don't even need them anymore.

Unless Alistar Chapman, student body president-elect, has a plan that is drastically different, which it doesn't appear he does, it might be better for him to devote his time and resources to things worth the time.

It's time for the Associated Students of the University of Arizona to get out of the tuition business.

Daniel Scarpinato is a former ASUA reporter for the Daily Wildcat. He is a journalism and political science senior and can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.