Many supposed “adults” believe students are inferior, slow and immature?that they need help because, well, they are still learning.

Just about every U student has felt the stigma attached to the title “student.” While it is still frustrating, such narrow-mindedness is easier to take in high school. Students shouldn’t tolerate such action on the college level, but they do, including those students chosen to lead the rest of us.

The Utah Council of Student Body Presidents meets regularly to discuss matters involving the management of the state system of higher education and lobbying tactics during the legislative session.

At each and every meeting of the UCSP sits a member of the commissioner of higher education’s office.

Edie Mitko is that “adult” hired to hold the hands of those poor student leaders who always need so much help and who would have no idea how to manage without the constant supervision of a superior.

Sarcasm aside, Mitko’s job is to help student leaders make decisions, but, at least to some degree, she is there to keep an eye on these students as well.

Recently, Mitko’s appearance hampered students’ lobbying strategies and highlighted the reason her position should be totally eliminated.

Student leaders have heard administrators warn about the large tuition hikes that are imminent in this year of legislative budget cuts. Administrators feel they have to ask students to cough up more dough to keep the universities open. How much dough is what administrators and students are still debating.

U administrators plan a 9.3 percent hike that translates to $284 a year, which is too high if you ask student body president Ben Lowe.

Lowe and his fellow student leaders decided 8 percent was as high as they wanted the increases to go. They felt that would allow administrators to get the revenue they needed to maintain the quality of education at each institution, while not gorging students’ pocketbooks at the same time.

In a meeting of the USCP, these leaders devised a plan to put an 8 percent tuition cap into legislative intent language, which has the effect of a law for only one year.

They even got a Republican legislator to sponsor the motion. Rep. Ron Bigelow, R Salt Lake, started gathering support for the cap, when Mitko betrayed the students’ strategy sessions and told her bosses about the plan.

The Commissioner of Higher Education’s Office and the state Board of Regents started lobbying against the cap. These “adults” quickly eroded the students’ legislative support killing the intent language and forcing students to beg Regents for some sort of deal. The Regents promised to create a more formal link between financial aid and tuition increases. As of now, nothing has happened on that link.

No one would say the Regents did not have a right to lobby against the cap, which they saw as threatening their own ability to set tuition, but by having Mitko attend student meetings, the Regents have an unfair advantage.

“She’s a great lady and we have nothing against her personally, but I can’t understand why student leaders would have allowed the system to be set up this way. Students and the Regents have different priorities,” said Steve Palmer, who is in charge of the UCSP.

Palmer recognizes when Regents and students have different priorities they must act as independent lobbying agencies.

Right now, Regents use their authority to gain a lobbying advantage. Regents can give students the respect they deserve and level the lobbying playing field by getting rid of the adviser position.

Student leaders and lobbyists already have an uphill battle as they work diligently to gain the respect and trust of lawmakers, something the Regents don’t have to do on a year to year basis.

For Regents to have a staff member sit in on every meeting, is not only insulting to student leaders, but detrimental to student efforts.

If Mitko didn’t tell her boss about the students’ proposed tuition cap, student leaders, with the help of Bigelow, would have had more time to garner support and make their case to lawmakers?time the Regents have in all of their lobbying efforts.

When the students’ priorities are different than the Regents, how can they expect to get adequate advising anyway?

The Regents will say it is necessary for the students to have an adviser, with such a complex system to learn in such a small amount of time. What students need is a mentor, someone to go to when they have questions.

They don’t need a babysitter.

If the Regents are totally against getting rid of the adviser position, which, since it benefits them is totally plausible, then they need to give students the same advantage by allowing Palmer and future leaders to attend their strategy sessions.

Regents look at students as a threat, so don’t look for this to happen any time soon.

Student leaders have become more savvy in the past two years. Last year, student leaders, with the help of legislators, not only capped tuition, but also passed a law mandating that Regents and institutional presidents must consult students before setting tuition.

This proves that these leaders are not the inferior, slow and immature people that some believe they are. The Regents, who say they work on behalf of students, need to recognize this and grant student leaders their lobbying autonomy.

Matt welcomes feedback at: [email protected] or send letters to the editor to: [email protected].