4
THE DIAMONDBACK | THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 2013
Opinion
EDITORIAL BOARD
Mike King
Editor in Chief
DAN APPENFELLER Managing Editor
BRIAN COMPERE
Deputy Managing Editor
maria romas Opinion Editor
ADAM OFFITZER
Assistant Opinion Editor
CONTACT US 3150 South Campus Dining Hall | College Park, MD 20742 | newsumdbk@gmail.com OR opinionumdbk@gmail.com PHONE (301) 314-8200
FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN RATES
Congrats, Congress? Time to update more than loans VIEW: Reducing sky-high tuition costs involves changing more than interest rates — it’s time to rethink our federal aid program.
CAROLINE CARLSON Last week, Congress passed a bipartisan compromise to completely change the way we pay interest rates on federal student loans. The plan, which ties interest rates to rates on 10-year treasury notes, received widespread support from both the House and Senate. But before we applaud and praise this rare instance of bipartisanship in government, it’s important to realize that bipartisan policy doesn’t necessarily equate to good policy. Just because Republicans and Democrats surprisingly agreed on a better way to set interest rates, it doesn’t mean Americans should irrationally assume this is the best way. Although some say this plan is a step forward in student loan reform (before the bill’s passing, Congress negotiated seemingly arbitrary interest rates), the bill includes provisions for rates to rise over the next decade. Proponents of the bill claim it’s economically efficient because it ties interest rates to the behavior of financial markets, but the bill mainly appears to benefit current borrowers, as they’ll still be able to pay a relatively low 3.86 percent interest rate, which may increase to a projected 6.3 percent in 2016 as the economy picks up. If we really want to solve the long-term issue of student debt and tuition affordability, we need to look at the overarching issue of federal student aid. Though this may be difficult to grasp, the biggest solution to this crisis is eventually phasing out federal student aid. For instance, our dependency on federal aid correlates with increases in general tuition prices, something federal aid was intended to solve. Data from the College Board show that over the past 30 years, tuition and room and board costs at public universities increased about $10,000, while the average for federal loans combined with grants for full-time students climbed just $9,750. Beyond looking at prices, increases in tuition can
largely stem from artificial demand for a college education. Although it seems nice to live in a culture promoting the idea that everyone needs a college education to be successful, it isn’t the be-all and end-all. According to the Center for Educational Statistics, nearly one-half of students don’t even finish their four-year bachelor’s degree. And the Center for College Affordability and Productivity also found in 2008 that about one-third of college graduates were underemployed or overqualified for their jobs, which may not have even required college educations. The “college is always necessary” culture added to the availability of student aid, which justifies people attending college when they don’t even need to, and it results in increased costs for everyone. Relying on federal student aid programs puts us in an unending cycle of dealing with increases in tuition. Though Congress’ plan alleviates this issue with a market-based approach, the ultimate phasing out of federal student aid is the only method that results in tuition prices reflective of students’ actual demand for a college education. Although aid supporters claim phasing out federal aid is dismissive of low-income families’ needs, a recent study by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance found that, as the percentage of students receiving federal Pell Grants at a college increases, the lower that college’s graduation rates become. While aid is meant to help low-income students, those students end up with a burden of debt and no degree. Many wellintentioned policies fail to actually solve the issues they’re meant to address, and the federal loan problem is one of them. Though some might say eliminating federal aid is a politically impossible goal, marginal steps to eventually phase these programs out could result in lower tuition and an ultimate end to the college affordability crisis. Caroline Carlson is a junior government and politics and information systems major. She can be reached at caroline.crlsn@gmail.com.
DIAMONDBACK EDITORIAL BOARD We can all breathe a sigh of relief — both congressional bodies have finally garnered bipartisan support and approved a bill that prevents Stafford student loan interest rates from doubling. In an era of continuing gridlock, that’s one of the only things both parties have come together to achieve. Luckily for us, this decision will likely help students enrolled in universities and those hoping to pursue higher education alike. Of the 435 members of the House of Representatives, only 31 voted against the bill July 31. It’s easy to feel hopeful for future hot-button compromises with such an overwhelming show of bipartisanship. But we should remember how much haranguing and hand-wringing Washington has seen in the past few years and ask: Why can’t Congress regularly cross party lines to make things happen? This decision is something our elected lawmakers should be praised for accomplishing. But it’s likely that the only reason the bill was so easily agreed upon was because Congress was under yet another self-imposed deadline to come up with a new plan, after failing to agree when the previous law expired on July 1. Take heart in the knowledge that when the decision came down to the wire this time, Congress chose to make decisions that are in students’ (and their parents’) best interests. Don’t feel overjoyed about peaceful politics in the future, though. Like the sequester, debt ceiling and countless other critical national decisions, this student loan legislation did not and should not have to be a last-minute, do-or-die decision. Perhaps more encouraging than the full
OUR VIEW: Congress finally got together to enact sensible legislation, but college students — and the nation — need more. body’s behavior is that every House member from Maryland, including the one Republican, Andy Harris, voted in favor of the bill. It’s comforting to know our state legislators are looking out for our best interest — especially because loan rates won’t just affect us as students, they will affect us as adults, too, when most of us will be in massive debt. Some experts have commented that the bill will grant stability to college borrowers of all stripes by tying rates to the 10-year treasury yield. Certainly, stability is the goal — the bill is called, somewhat self-servingly, the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013. But ultimately, the broader economic market will dictate the rate, to an extent. With years of mercurial policy and slow recovery, that seems dangerous in the long run. The bottom line is we should be happy the government is addressing the obscenely high interest rates on student loans. It’s a step in the right direction. Now, what we’re missing is any change in regard to rising tuition and student fees, which leads to more student borrowing and a ridiculous amount of debt after four years of increasingly necessary schooling. The members of Congress can only pat themselves on the back for this latest vote for so long. Lest we forget, we are living in a country with $1 trillion in outstanding student loan debt. For a country so apparently dedicated to higher education, where are the revolutionary ideas that will finally loose our students from the shackles of debt? If anything,this decision on loan rates should inspire us all — as always — to question our representatives and demand more extensive changes to our higher education system.
EDITORIAL CARTOON
Ramadan: Time to reflect YASMEEN ABUTALEB
ben stryker/the diamondback
GUEST COLUMN
University employees know actions speak louder than words
U
niversity employees like us want to set the record straight regarding gross inaccuracies in Administration and Finance Vice President Carlo Colella’s column, “Action, not words, for putting university employees first,” which appeared in the July 25 edition of The Diamondback. University workers believe actions speak louder than words. The actions of some managers and the large, antiunion law firm, BakerHostetler, which the university hired to negotiate our contract, have deeply insulted us. Colella got it wrong when he stated, “An allegation that housekeepers had ‘no choice’ but to eat in closets is simply untrue.” Even though this shameful working condition occurred for many years and the university knew about it, union members have not been quoted stating housekeepers were forced to eat their lunch in janitorial closets along with dirty mop water and cleaning chemicals. In fact, The Diamondback accurately captured our stance, stating, “housekeepers were never explicitly forced to eat lunch in closets.” The fact of the matter is that housekeepers — many of whom have worked for the university for more than a decade — ate our lunches in janitorial closets because there were no break rooms in the buildings we were assigned to clean. We had only a half hour for lunch and we could not get to another location on the campus and back in that
half hour. Some housekeepers were told by immediate supervisors not to eat in staff lounges in buildings we cleaned. And Colella (formerly Facilities Management associate vice president) knows this — or should know this — before he makes baseless charges against hardworking university employees. On Colella’s claim that parking rates were scaled back for lowerpaid employees, workers did not say lower-paid employees paid more for parking than other coworkers. We told the truth. And that truth is because of the regressive, two-tiered parking fee system, lower-paid workers pay a much higher percentage of their income for parking than higher-paid workers. We would expect Colella to understand that when you earn $10.80 an hour for cleaning his toilet, for example, and pay several hundreds of dollars annually for parking, that you’re paying a far higher percentage of your income for parking than Colella, who earns $200,940 annually, according to The Diamondback’s 2013 salary guide. Finally, the vice president is either not telling the truth or is willfully ignorant of the fact that many of our coworkers, elected to serve on our contract bargaining team, received emails from their immediate supervisors stating they would not be paid and had to use their own personal vacation time to attend contract negotiation sessions. We’re happy to provide the emails to The Diamondback, and to the vice president if they would
refresh his memory. Several of us took our own vacation time to attend the last contract negotiating session. We are deeply committed to the mission of this institution and to the success of university students. The recent worker wins, such as areas to eat lunch, not having to use vacation time to negotiate our contract, air conditioning and lighting being on when we report to work and others, have all happened because workers stuck together and held campus events. We are proud of the work we do. We hope what students learn from our collective effort and recent actions is that there is dignity in all work and all workers deserve respect. And when they stick together to demand it, they will win it. We remain ready to negotiate a contract with university management. We look forward to the next bargaining session Aug. 22. The authors are University of Maryland employees currently negotiating a contract with the university: Antonia Escobar, Jose Alvarez, Lorena Hernandez, Iris Castro, Jim Forney, Craig Newman, Dawn Jackson , Greg Johnson , Soloman Commissiong, Barbara Hansborough, Cathy Jan, Akilah Jackson, Jeff Fiory, Patrick Alcendor, Joe Sherman, Ed Duckworth, Saul Walker, Rhonda Leneski , Angela Machado, Don Mitchell, Pat Powell, Valerie Brackins and Allen Holmes. They can be reached at jpittman@afscmemd.org.
Instead of taking a lunch break for the past month, I’ve longingly looked at my coworker’s sandwich, scoured the Internet for pictures of food so vivid you can almost taste it (thanks, Pinterest) or tried to distract myself with articles about whatever I may be interested in that day — many times about new restaurants or food fads. And it’s not because I’m on some crazy diet plan in which I deprive myself of all food and am left to imagine it instead. It’s because Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting, began on July 10 for me. Most people know the very basics of Ramadan: You abstain from all food or drink, including water, from dawn until sunset. When I explain this to my friends or coworkers, I’m usually greeted with shocked looks and comments of, “I have no idea how you do that” and, “Couldn’t you, like, die?” As this year’s Ramadan came to a close — yesterday was the last day and today is Eid-al-Fitr, which celebrates the end of the month — a friend asked me how this year’s fast compared to last. Sure, I still felt tired and hungry, I told him, but I also felt I had come to appreciate Ramadan for all it’s supposed to teach us. It’s not just about missing lunch for a month — it’s also about bringing family and friends together for Iftar, the evening meal that breaks the fast, and truly learning self-discipline. The not eating and drinking, I like to think, is a reminder of everything we’re supposed to be cognizant of while we’re fasting. It’s almost like its own 30-day rehab program. We don’t only abstain from food and drink — we’re also supposed to avoid gossiping and cursing (difficult for many of us), and all general negative behavior. And Ramadan is a time to be more giving and compassionate toward those less fortunate, whether it’s through donations to the poor or just smiling to more people as you walk down the street.
Of course, not everyone is required to fast. You’re supposed to start fasting once you’ve reached puberty, and there are plenty of exemptions because it’s not supposed to harm you in any way. Pregnant women, people on medication or who are sick (even just a cold) and people traveling are just a few examples. Perhaps most importantly, for one month, you truly learn what it’s like not to be able to eat whenever you want, and you develop a new compassion for those less fortunate. Yes, we can’t eat or drink all day, but we know exactly what time our next meal will be and that there will be more than enough food for us to enjoy. And we know when the month is over, we can eat and drink whenever we want — do any of us really stop to think about how awesome that is? I’ve been fortunate enough to enjoy a comfortable life, and I’ve never had to worry where my next meal was coming from. It’s something I’ve always appreciated, but during Ramadan, I always feel more compelled to give money to people on the streets, make sure my family and friends all know how much I love them and work on my shortcomings. After explaining all this to my friend, I realized Ramadan — or maybe just fasting for a day — is something everyone should try at least once in their lives. After all, we both reasoned, there are lessons and shared humanity in the act, Muslim or not. The month is over; the feasting for Eid has begun and everything will be back to normal tomorrow. But I hope that each year, I get a little closer to appreciating what I have all year. And I hope I finish the month with the lessons I’m supposed to have learned. Next year, Ramadan will start at about June 28, because the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, meaning it starts on different days in different countries. Maybe you should wait until Ramadan is in the winter again (and the days are far shorter), but try it for one year — or even just one day. If anything, it’ll at least be another challenge you can overcome, and there’s plenty of pride in that. Yasmeen Abutaleb is a senior journalism and microbiology major and former editor in chief. She can be reached at y.abutaleb7@gmail.com.