|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial: Think before threatening law school funds
want to bring on the cheers of your colleagues and your Republican constituents if you are a Republican? Propose a plan to cut funding to anything. It is not necessary to do any research to determine where the cuts are REALLY needed, or whether there are any obstacles in the way that would make the cuts impossible. Nor is it necessary to put forth any logical arguments supporting the cuts. This is what State Senator Randall Gnant, (R-Scottsdale), has done, in proposing to eliminate state funding for the state law schools and all other state education beyond an undergraduate degree. Gnant never bothered to ask James E. Rogers, the generous donor whose $100 million dollar donation was contingent upon the UA College of Law not hiking its tuition, about this proposal. Of course Rogers was infuriated by the audacity of Gnant's proposal when he heard about it. Gnant even had the nerve to state that the law school would lose its funding first. Rogers is a graduate of the UA College of Law and earmarked most of his donation to it. Gnant's rudeness in the face of Roger's gift of money to the UA virtually guarantees no one will take his proposal seriously. Since the UA really needs Rogers' donation, there is no way the legislature would pass a proposal killing this incredibly generous donation. Gnant's sarcastic remarks about the usefulness of post-undergraduate degrees reveal his true motives. By targeting the law schools first, which already charge higher tuition than undergraduate schools - $4500 to undergraduates' $2500 - it appears that Gnant has something against lawyers. His offhand remark about the value of a medical education also echoes this disdain, saying that public funds shouldn't be wasted on doctors' training "for him to do tummy tucks in Scottsdale." Sounds like Gnant has been living in Scottsdale for too long and needs to get out and see the real world. Perhaps he should visit our state law schools, medical schools, business and other graduate schools, and maybe he would realize that not all doctors are plastic surgeons living in Scottsdale, or lawyers like the ones in Congress. There are a lot of OB-GYNs delivering our babies. There are a lot of public defenders making barely middle-class incomes while protecting the least of us. Gnant's theory that post-undergraduate education means more money is clearly and deeply flawed. Computer science majors earn as much as lawyers do upon graduating. Why isn't Gnant targeting computer science education? Gnant never bothered to discuss his proposal with the Board of Regents, the university presidents, and the law schools' deans. This lack of inquiry reflects a careless attitude toward the process of policy implementation in our democratic system of government. He should know better as a member of the state Senate. Although his plan looks good to a few knee-jerk Republicans who don't know anything about the issue, overall it ruins the credibility of any plan to cut funding for higher education. Perhaps public funding of secondary education should be cut, but it will never happen at this time because Gnant's proposal makes a mockery of it.
|
