On April 4, the Portland State University (PSU) Board of Trustees (BOT) made a pivotal decision to raise tuition by approximately 5% for the upcoming academic year, sparking considerable debate about the legitimacy of the feedback process that informed this decision.
During the Board’s discussion, Vice President of Finance & Administration Andria Johnson asserted that the majority of the campus community favored a tuition increase as evidenced by a recent survey.
However, this claim came under scrutiny when it was revealed that the survey results predominantly represented staff input, with minimal participation from faculty and almost no contributions from students.
In her presentation, Johnson stated, “In March, we held a university-wide budget forum, and we asked the participants a couple of questions… In that survey, over 70% of the respondents did support a 5% or greater tuition increase.”
Citing transparency as a key concern for the campus community, Johnson emphasized the importance of following through on the strategic goals outlined in PSU’s Strategic Plan, indicating that many were prepared for difficult choices to address budget constraints.
However, BOT Chair Benjamin Berry questioned Johnson about the composition of the survey respondents, asking for clarity on student input.
“This was mostly staff,” Johnson acknowledged, citing a significant skew in representation.
Student Trustee AJ Romero-Gemmell then pressed Johnson, inquiring about the exact number of student respondents.
Johnson hesitated but ultimately confirmed that only one student had participated.
Romero-Gemmell expressed his disappointment during the meeting, stating, “How we communicate and work with the community at large is really important. And to be honest, looking at slide 20… only one of them was a student… that is quite infuriating and enraging as a student and as a board member… Disheartening and disgusting to be honest.”
In a follow-up interview with PSU Vanguard, Johnson defended the survey’s validity, noting, “I think it was an accurate reflection of the data that was collected.”
Still, she acknowledged that the wording of the survey could have been improved to better contextualize the representation of respondents.
During the presentation, another slide highlighted feedback from the Tuition Review Advisory Committee (TRAC), which had conducted a separate survey focusing more directly on student opinions regarding tuition increases.
This survey yielded a more balanced response, with 49 out of 95 respondents being students, but the results were not featured in the presentation slides and were instead mentioned verbally, which raised further concerns among board members regarding transparency.
The TRAC survey reported approximately 42% in favor of a 5% tuition increase, a stark contrast to the earlier staff-heavy survey.
Johnson maintained that the aggregate responses between the two surveys showed a general understanding of the need for a tuition increase, although this assertion seemed to overlook the significant differences in how those opinions were formed.
Board members expressed heightened concern regarding the university’s ability to effectively gather and represent campus feedback, with Trustee Marissa Madrigal remarking, “We’re a research institution, and… if there really was only one student… I think that is a legitimate and valid criticism of that statistic, and it does undermine our relationship with the community.”
Against the backdrop of program cuts and faculty layoffs, Johnson justified the tuition increase by citing rising operational costs and unforeseen financial burdens, including a 9% increase in the university’s obligations to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).
Additionally, Johnson noted that PSU’s share of the Public University Support Fund has declined due to falling enrollment, thus exacerbating the university’s financial challenges.
“I don’t know why [resident] students are choosing to attend… other universities,” she explained, further highlighting the competitive landscape faced by PSU in attracting students.
Looking ahead, Johnson suggested that tuition increases may be expected in the future, saying, “I suspect that we will have tuition increases, just as we will have cost increases.”
The concern over sustainability of tuition hikes and program cuts was echoed by other trustees, including Trustee Gregory Hinckley, who cautioned, “This can work for a bit, but it is unsustainable… How do we grow credit hours? How do we increase students?”
With similar sentiments, Faculty Trustee Vicki Reitenauer remarked on the need to consider how cuts could adversely affect student retention.
After thorough discussion, the BOT ultimately voted to approve the tuition increase, with all trustees voting in favor except for the two student representatives who opposed it.
The implementation of the tuition increase will keep the total amount below 5%, aligning with legal limits for raising tuition without state approval.
For the majority of undergraduate students enrolled in the Tuition Free Degree program, this increase will not have a direct impact.
The estimated increase per term for resident undergraduates is projected to be $182, while for resident graduate students, it stands at $305.
For further details, the comprehensive slide deck related to the April 3 BOT meeting is available for review.
image source from：https://psuvanguard.com/board-of-trustees-approves-5-tuition-hike-amid-controversial-campus-feedback-claims/
