Introduction
The significance of student fees is one of the core sources of funds for universities and colleges is different according to every institution. Differences exist among the diverse colleges in every state while the private colleges impose a broad range of fees and student tuition. Nevertheless, all the charges are accepted by guardians and their children as a way of getting an education and there have been little legal contentions that have contested the charges (Klinton and Kern, 2011). Meanwhile, private colleges charge fees according to the supply and demand because the students have limited legal redress unless the state attempts to engage the school. The relationship between the students and the private schools is highly contractual, and the students are at the whims and regulations of the private university.
Equity and Tuition
Some charges at the universities have been in contention for many years. Most people believe that you can only benefit in education if you contribute monetarily. It is a form of increasing revenues without additional taxation. Tuition fees in public universities are a form of regressive taxes. The Board of Regents at the University of Iowa believe that tuition fees are necessary because the funds from taxes are inadequate to cater for proper education. Many questions arise regarding the issue on whether the state has a responsibility in providing equal chances for all university students or whether the charges reduce the ultimate productivity of education (Klinton and Kern, 2011). Nevertheless, the courts have not made an affirmative action to address inequality in education and have allowed administrative and legal agencies to make the choices. Despite the fact that the courts have not made a formal ruling regarding the matter, universities have been given the power to determine fees.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Incidental Fees
The charging and collection of incidental fees have been mainly determined by each state’s laws. A case in 1912 argued that the board of regents could not charge fees during entrance because education was free in their university. Also, the court ruled in 1895 that the university could of charge 5 dollars so that the students could utilize the university library. At that period, the state of Kansas offered free university admission for all their residents (Klinton and Kern, 2011). The courts stated that h board of regents had no authority unless law required it. The authority could only be given to the university by the legislature. Nevertheless, the courts in some universities allowed the levying and collection of heating and lighting fees where the charges had not been provided by the state’s budget. Such rulings were ultra vires because the universities had not been given legislative authority. They also allowed special fees for athletics, student union, hospitals and the laboratory.
Nonresident Tuition
It does not conform to illegal discrimination because they are aimed at giving preference to the state’s residents and avoiding large influx of nonresidents from taking advantage of the universities in the state. It occurs when a student wants to benefit from a university in a different state without having plans to live in the other state. The rules have ben implemented in the states with decreasing populations to ensure there is no economic and educational spillover to the other states. However, judicial precedents dictate that the classification of residents and nonresidents should not affect the quality of education (Klinton and Kern, 2011). The courts stated that there was no need for contention regarding extra fees for nonresidential students. A one-year residence was required for the nonresident students to acquire similar rights as the resident students because the nonresidents and their respective families did not make contributions or taxes towards the support of the universities.
Domicile and Residency
The two terms “residence” and “domicile” have been heavily contested because of the aspiration of the student to live permanently in the state. Domicile refers to the original habitat of the students or a permanent home. It is a place where hey aspires to live without having intentions to have a new home elsewhere. An individual may possess more than one residence but have only one legal domicile. The courts have argued that the rules on domicile leave room for deception. Most states require a one-year continuous residence that is not interrupted if the student leaves for a month or more to conduct research or give lectures (Klinton and Kern, 2011). N such situations, the rules of equal protection still apply. The rules should only show a distinction between nonresidents and residents in a rational way but not in unreasonable conditions. It should indicate a valid state objective.
Irrebuttable Presumption
It is a legal concept that is rarely used by the Supreme Court but was used in the Cleveland Education Board v. Lafleur and Vlandis v. Kline. In the former case, the decision by the school board was deemed as a form of violation because the assumed that a teacher was unfit to teach because she was pregnant. The decision by the school board violated the law because their capabilities to teach were not diminished by pregnancy (Klinton and Kern, 2011). Also, the nonresident rules offer a blanket policy to all nonresident policies without giving importance to the intentions of the students after completing their education. Despite the fact that irrebuttable presumption may violate the law, the courts state that the legal presumption gives an assumption that is people are equal despite the concept of classification. Also, the people are not given a chance to challenge their classification is a form of constitutional violation.
Alien Students
Due to the global status of the US, immigration policies have become an issue of contention. The Supreme Court made fundamental ground rules regarding alien children in two crucial cases: the Martinez v. Bynum in 1893 and the Plyler v. Doe in 1982. The courts ruled that despite the fact that education was not a basic right, alien children had a right to attend their public schools (Klinton and Kern, 2011). The courts argue that alien children are given protection by the fourteenth amendment. It also stated that the fundamental rights are extended to all people within the territorial integrity of the US. However, in the Martinez v. Bynum case, the courts stated that the alien children were not obligated to ignore state residency laws despite the benefits of the fourteenth amendment. Despite the protection of the fourteenth amendment, the illegal students cannot gain residence with the aim of attending school nor have preferential treatment regarding tuition fees.
Supremacy Clause
The residency regulations should be written so that they do not affect federal treaties or laws. It explains that despite the fact that the US is a multicultural society, the original political societies are supreme over the new political societies (Klinton and Kern, 2011). It also states that all state residency laws should not act indifferently to the federal laws. For example, the University of Maryland had acted indifferently to students who held G-4 visas and the Supreme Court had to strike down their policy.
Summation of the Law
It states that education is not regarded as a fundamental right in the country. The one-year residency policy does not act contrary to the law. Documents of residence are inadequate to establish residency in any state. The classification of students regarding their residency is not discriminatory but should be reasonable and is critical to the academic community. States are allowed to formulate residency restrictions. The Supremacy Clause should not be violated.
References
Klinton W. Alexander and Kern Alexander (2011). Higher Education Law: Policy and Perspectives, by Routledge.
