Much has been said about the budget problems facing the U. Returning students, no doubt, have noticed the increase in tuition.

Something that many students and faculty members have likely not noticed are those students who are not here.

Last spring, Bernie Machen issued a challenge to admissions administrators to keep this year’s enrollment numbers identical to those of a year ago. The reasoning behind Machen’s challenge stems from the lack of funding the U received from the Utah State Legislature.

The state legislators have not appropriated the enrollment-growth funds to the U for the past three years.

This lack of funding has left the U $15 million short of where it needs to be.

Undoubtedly the enrollment “pause” is meant to alleviate some of the pressures the U has faced due to under funding.

Although the thought of capping enrollment at a public institution of higher learning can be troubling in a very practical sense, what is most disturbing is the continued lack of commitment the state has shown toward higher education philosophically.

The benefit of a public institution of higher education to a community cannot be quantified.

Not only does the community at large benefit from the fact that families can afford to send their children to top-notch schools, but the community benefits from more educated students entering the work force.

The relationship between a state and its higher education institutions is quite symbiotic. Unfortunately for the U, the legislature does not seem to view things this way.

The result of an enrollment cap inevitably will result in students going elsewhere for their schooling or not going at all. Some may argue that students will simply go to other state institutions. However, there is a problem with this argument.

First, all the money is coming from the same proverbial pot. When enrollment growth funds are not being paid to one state institution, what is to suggest it will be paid to another? Also, it would be naive to assume that a student can receive the same caliber education elsewhere.

At the moment, the U is not to the point where it has outgrown its physical facilities.

From that standpoint, there is still room for many people to attend the U.

The enrollment cap is not beneficial to current U students as students who are sitting in the aisles of their 200-seat auditoriums will have to continue to do so.

Which, of course, means the quality of education at the U will not improve.

But, with the enrollment cap, students won’t have to now share their space on the floor.

However, the cap may have a large effect on diversity at the U. Studies have shown that student from Caucasian, high socioeconomic backgrounds often score higher on standardized tests, which is a large component for acceptance at the U.

As the U narrows down the amount of students accepted each year, many minority students and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may not be admitted to the U.

Diversity of all sorts-whether racial, religious, socioeconomic or otherwise-is important on a college campus.

Diversity allows students to experience the world through varied eyes, and that opportunity is invaluable.

The education that one receives at the U is unlike that of any institution in the state.

The academic freedom, quality of faculty and diversity of student body make the U both a unique and ideal institution for prospective students.

Unfortunately for many, the doors to the admissions office may be locked.