I’m angry.  Really angry, and have been for a while.  Angry at the state legislature for cutting the Michigan Promise, angrier at them for cutting the need biased aid that can sometimes really be the difference between being able to college and not for some students.  After the cuts to the Promise, I started to think about the costs and benefits for the University of Michigan of being associated with the state government.  Like a relationship gone sour, the University’s connection with the State seems to be offering fewer and fewer benefits for students while making more and more demands on the university.  In years past, the state, understanding the importance of an educated workforce and citizenry, acted on the moral and economic imperative and offered an education to its citizens.  Today, the state has forgotten its duty to the university , but discovered its ability to micromanage the organization they no longer support.

We have a long proud tradition as a public university, and as Thomas Jefferson once said such relationships long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes.  But year after year in good times as well as bad, the state has cut support for students, and in my view it is time to consider — not adopt but consider — a new model for our great university.

In that light: let these Facts be submitted to a candid world:

The state now provides 7% of the funding for U of M.  For every dollar, it provides a nickel and two pennies.  It makes approximately the same contribution to the university it claims to support as shit-I-find-in-my-sheets makes to my rent payment.  At the height of state support, it provided about 75% of the university’s money.

U of M offers an education comparable to most high end private schools and, as a result of budget cuts, does it at a similar price

The state just recently eliminated or cut the fringe benefits of being a public school — like state-supported student financial aid

And it’s reasonable to fear that private support might crowd out other support as the myth of state support discourages potential donors

In the words of James Duderstadt: “We used to be state-supported, then state-assisted, and now we are state-located.”

And in exchange for a level of support so paltry it can be rivaled by Steven Ross alone, the state has the audacity to tell the University:

How it can teach students (ok so this proposal was rejected but it’s still scary)

Who it can admit

How it can attempt to make up for institutional racism

How it can treat gay partners

This in addition to the fact that the University is governed by Regents elected by the same voters who once decided John Engler and Jeffery Fieger were the state’s two most qualified politicians.

Plus they jack the pot fine way up

Has my anger driven me off the deep end?  Or is this reasonable?