“Access is the number one issue facing higher education in America.” Those words echoed off the walls of the McKimmon Center Friday morning from Charlene Nunley, President of Montgomery College.

Nunley was just one of many of our nation’s higher education leaders who gathered at the Emerging Issues Forum last week. Business leaders flooded the halls with their shiny leather suitcases while high-profile educators took the stage alongside former N.C. Governor and host Jim Hunt.

The theme of the forum was Transforming Higher Education and all the expected motifs were present — affordability, globalization, work force development and innovation. The two-day event was even chock-full of exciting news including the proposed increase of $550 for each Pell Grant from the Bush administration.

As a frequent critic of higher education, I stood against the back wall of the convention room with press members. My intention was to write a glowing review of the forum. After all, talks about college accessibility and innovation can only be noble … right?

To be honest, there are plenty of reasons to have hope for the future of higher education in North Carolina. N.C. State Chancellor James L. Oblinger highlighted the creation of the Pack Promise — a hefty financial aid award given to more than 300 of our University’s most financially needy students.

And rival UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor James Moeser touted his university’s better version, the Carolina Covenant. This financial aid award meets 100 percent of the financial needs of 11 percent of Chapel Hill’s student body — pretty impressive.

But just as I began to jot down these progressive statistics, I heard the most horrifying statement come from the stage. Andrea Bazan-Manson, president of the Triangle Community Foundation, boldly exclaimed, “Educating kids should not be controversial or political.”

“What? Is she serious?” I thought.

Then a thunderous applause erupted from the audience.

Ms. Bazan-Manson’s rhetoric may have fooled everyone else, but she didn’t win me over. There are plenty of “controversial” and “political” questions facing higher education. Who should fund public education? What kind of curricula should we offer in universities? Does every student need a college education today?

Those difficult questions deserve public debate.

After making such an enlightening declaration, Ms. Bazan-Manson went on to add her own spice of controversy to the discussion: “We must allow undocumented students the opportunity to receive a college education.”

Here our nation is, in the middle of an illegal immigration debate, and Bazan-Manson calls for state and federal monies to educate students whose parents don’t pay taxes! With all the legal high school seniors across our nation who can’t afford to attend college, might I suggest that this lady find a way for those students to get an education first?

But an unlawful focus on “undocumented students” wasn’t even the issue that disturbed me most. Instead, it was the forum’s continuous blabber about high-income students versus low-income students.

The two UNC system chancellors boasted their plans to alleviate the financial needs of the poor. And President Nunley made the repeated comment, “You’re more likely to go to college if you’re rich and unprepared rather than poor and smart.”

Sure, the promise of an education for the poor is a moral obligation of our society. Our universities should be commended for trying to find solutions to the disparities that exist across the state.

However, what these chancellors and presidents fail to see is that it’s the middle class that is hurting most today. Rich and poor segments of society represent a small fraction of the general populace. Rich people can afford to get an education and poor people have resources from the federal and state governments.

But what about the majority of us middle class students?

The University slapped us in the face with a $230 tuition increase for next school year, with 45.6 percent of the funds going toward financial aid, 7 percent for the Pack Promise, and 25 percent for greedy faculty members. Only 21.4 percent of the funds from the increase will go toward improving educational quality and access.

This is wealth-redistribution at its worst.

How can the University take money from already struggling middle class students who aren’t eligible for grants and loans? You take from the poor to give to the wealthy and the subsidized?

The moral of the story is this: If our University truly cares about accessibility, then professors should stop asking for their $100,000 salaries to increase and the chancellor should take funds from his $3.5 million mansion project and give it to those of us who eat ramen noodles for supper.

E-mail Forrest your emerging issue at [email protected].