Illustration by Jaime Hebel

When I was younger, my parents gave me a very idealistic view of education. Public schools are an incredible cornerstone of our society, and our government has a responsibility to provide education to everyone they represent. My understanding of education was, of course, somewhat simplified as a middle-schooler. However, the recognition of education as a social good is certainly not a new one. In college, administrators talk about their educational work as a necessary pillar of our society — and they are correct! Education is absolutely a social good, but it is rarely treated as such by those at the highest levels of academic administration and decision-making. 

The absurd increases in college tuition over the past 50 years are the most apparent disconnect between the “socially necessary model” of higher education and our current one. At WashU specifically, tuition has increased every single year since at least 2014. Except for the years 2021 and 2022, each of these increases outpaced inflation by an average of about 1.7 percentage points. This pattern is by no means new; a 2023 Forbes article explains the following: 

“In 1980, the price to attend a four-year college full-time was $10,231 annually—including tuition, fees, room and board, and adjusted for inflation—according to the National Center for Education Statistics. By 2019-20, the total price increased to $28,775. That’s a 180% increase.” For most college students, this probably isn’t a shocking statistic. Even when accounting for inflation, students today are paying drastically more than older generations. 

The root of this unbelievable tuition inflation lies in the fact that university administrators and wealthy investors have been taking advantage of the U.S. government’s attempts to make college more affordable since the 1960s. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Higher Education Act, which massively expanded students’ access to federally backed student loans. For universities, these new federal loans meant that tuition increases would no longer be followed by a decrease in enrollment. Students would keep taking out more loans to keep pace with tuition, and schools could count on the government to shoulder the burden of any unpaid loans. 

Now that the government would be using a loan program instead of directly regulating the cost of tuition, universities could develop a market for higher education that took advantage of the government’s responsibility to fund education. Universities could instead work as an extension of the private sector, with the confidence that the government would continue sending them a steady stream of customers (students) despite tuition increases. 

It is important here to establish the deep connections between higher-education institutions — public, private for-profit, and private “non-profit” universities (like WashU) — and wealthy corporations, investors, and others whose jobs are entirely built on the search for higher profits. These relationships are most clear when looking at WashU’s endowment, which was valued at $11.5 billion in June of 2023. 58.3% of that endowment is allocated towards “private capital.” 

All of this does not mean quality education has faded entirely from the list of the administration’s priorities. Many administrators likely still believe in education. Even if they didn’t, the professors, lecturers, and other faculty would continue educating the student body. I am deeply in support of the expansion of university resources and the long-term sustainability of higher education. I am not convinced, however, that tying up billions of dollars in private capital is the best way to fulfill WashU’s obligations as an educational institution. 

None of these points are entirely specific to WashU, or even to U.S. universities as a whole. The prioritization of profits for the abstract entity of “the company” over the well-being of people — including the workers providing that profit in the first place — deserves intense criticism wherever it happens. And WashU’s ability to maintain the facade of caring about the St. Louis community is what disappoints me most.

Programs like No Loan, the Rural Scholars Academy, and other initiatives aimed at financial accessibility are fantastic. Marrying the university’s well-being to the profit margins of fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, and plenty of other corporations that remain undisclosed is actively harmful to those populations that WashU claims to support. The University continues to not pay property taxes, which has an increased impact through its recent purchase of Fontbonne’s campus and various other properties on the Loop. Local activists have spoken out about how they wish WashU’s student body was more politically active on local issues, and the effects of gentrification around campus have been a relevant research topic for years. All of this makes the administration’s “In St. Louis, for St. Louis” mantra come off as a sick joke that entirely misunderstands the real impact of WashU’s presence. 

One of Chancellor Martin’s main talking points on the endowment is that it exists “to generate as much return as possible.” This implies that although WashU, on paper, values sustainability, the University will continue to invest in fossil fuels as long as they are more profitable than renewable energy. However, there is little evidence that WashU’s investments in fossil fuels are actually more fiscally responsible, even in the short term. A February 2023 McKinsey report found that companies who speak extensively about their environmental and social considerations experience more growth than those who do not. While the report was only looking at the claims companies made and not measuring the actual environmental and social effects of their actions, it is much easier to claim environmental sustainability when you are actively making decisions that contribute to that sustainability. 

In other news, earlier this year, Chancellor Martin refused to meaningfully engage with student groups’ calls for divestment from fossil fuels, simply stating, “We’ve made the decision that the purpose of the endowment is to generate as much return as possible. We do so in a socially responsible way.” I guess the jury is still out on whether continued investment in fossil fuels is ever socially responsible. 

If WashU wants to continue functioning as a conduit for billions of dollars in private investment, they should at least be honest about their financial structures and stop taking advantage of their “non-profit” distinction to simply get out of paying taxes. Alternatively, if WashU administrators are truly interested in being a not-for-profit, socially responsible, St. Louis-based hub for the public good of education, they should stop acting as a profit-seeking corporation. Instead, the University should use its billions to lower — or at least stop raising — tuition; increase faculty pay; hire more full-time faculty members; and pursue projects that don’t have the increased marketability of the University as a main goal. Until that happens, “In St. Louis, for St. Louis” will remain a largely hollow promise held up by only a few noble scholarship programs.