From April 9-11, CSUSM students will be eligible to participate in a campus-wide vote on the proposed tuition increase. This fee increase will support the development of wellness and recreation facilities.
Students have long been vocal about their desire for better health and recreation facilities. According to a fall 2023 CSUSM survey, “91% of students said a new facility should be a top priority for CSUSM.” The facility will include the creation of more than 80 new student assistant positions. It also has the added benefit of being
However, students need to be fully informed about the proposed $265 per semester tuition increase, especially since they will be making the final decision on whether to fund the development of the facility.
This article does not focus on the details of the proposed wellness and recreation facilities. This is because it’s already well documented elsewhere. Rather, I will be presenting my case for voting ‘no’ in the upcoming referendum.
There are two main concerns. First, CSUSM’s relentless pursuit of this facility calls into question its motives. Second, the public-private partnership used to develop the facility deserves skepticism. And third, the decision to increase fees for all students despite some niche services (including Esports) raises questions. Why not use individual memberships to fund facilities rather than campus-wide student fees?
CSU faculty and staff went on strike earlier this school year as real wages have stagnated since the pandemic. Many of our faculty are overworked and underpaid, yet CSU continues to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in administrative fees. Teachers often have to fight to keep their wages in line with inflation. It’s a similar story for staff and student assistants. Most student assistants earn minimum wage. Non-student employees should be paid better. However, despite this fact, student fees for wellness and recreation facilities will be automatically adjusted for inflation.
Therefore, while the students clearly express their enthusiasm for the health and human services facility, we must also try to understand CSUSM’s enthusiasm for this project.
Facilities like the one proposed for our campus are notorious for forcing students to bear the burden of university budget cuts. Not only that, they often burden students with even more student loans and are used to attract higher-income students from out of state.
Students on campus have been vocal about San Marcos’ worsening housing shortage for years. Housing will be added to the upper floors of the facility, but CSUSM is asking students to pay a campus-wide student fee that will support the development of the facility. Remember, off-campus students are not asked to pay for off-campus housing solutions (such as The QUAD). Essentially, CSUSM is asking students to pay directly into a business that will already be a profitable business in the long run. Not only that, but they are also asking students to pay for projects that already involve private investment.
So what exactly is a public-private partnership (P3)? A P3 development typically involves a private developer who pays for most of the initial investment and construction of the project. In return, the public partner is expected to primarily manage and maintain the facility and generate revenue for the private partner.
What makes this P3 development particularly unique is its use of leased land. CSUSM does not own the land in or around The QUAD (another of his P3 developments). So, rather than building a new facility on land owned by CSUSM, the university will lease the land it is developing. Not only that, CSUSM requires students to pay these fees at least one year before the facility is scheduled to be completed.
CSUSM emphasizes that building a wellness and recreation facility on campus would cost students an estimated $900 per semester, which is understandably unfeasible. That said, given the nature of this public-private partnership in leased land, it casts serious doubt on the argument as to why students should have to pay these fees in the first place. If CSUSM does not own this planned facility outright, why should all students be responsible for the upkeep of this partially commercial enterprise? This leads to the point.
Instead of asking all students to pay an additional fee, why not try an individual membership subscription? There are two reasons why this route should be taken seriously.
First, CSUSM students do not have to pay for public-private development on leased land. Honestly, the mere prospect is extremely stupid and only benefits her CSUSM and its private partners, not the students.
Secondly, this property offers a variety of amenities, some of which are quite niche. This includes esports, yoga, Zumba, personal trainers, and more. These resources sound great, but should all students pay to have them available? Why not offer a separate membership to access these services? ?
Even if a student’s tuition is covered by financial aid, this should raise concerns. Public funds are paid regardless of whether you pay your tuition fees privately. The proposed facility is just one example of the increasing privatization of public education, especially in California, where demand for schools is high.
My hope is not to convince readers that our campuses do not need health or recreational facilities. They should know that I too believe there is a great need for services like the one being proposed.
However, we do not believe that supporting this current measure is in the best interests of students. If a university has entered into a public-private partnership to develop this facility, students should not be expected to support the “public” side of the arrangement. Student fees at public universities are privately exploited, especially given that the people who work so hard to make CSUSM a campus – faculty, staff, student assistants, and all other personnel – are exploited by the university. It should not support profit. Let’s see if their needs are met first.
