OT: Update to the Student Veteran Policy at UM - RE: Claim of Discrimination

thanks for the update.

It's sad how TV news has bypassed the old school methods of reporting, which included things like fact checking and accuracy.

Of course there was more to the story. Unfortunately, the news outlets won't print or broadcast the correction because its not nearly as sensational as the original story. Media outlets aren't nearly as concerned with accuracy as they are about ad dollars.

If you read the mgoboard posts from the other thread, UM's response actually mirrors what most veterans here reported (veteran outreach campaign, military friendly, Yellow Ribbon, etc.). It seemed to just be the people unfamiliar w/ the process that shouted, "Injustice!"



More than anything, most of the issues arise w/ the initial processing/determination of residency paperwork. UM (or any other school) can't afford to blindly accept every veteran package as in-state without doing their due diligence. Similar to how the VA delays students' reimbursement in the first semester of school, everything gets retroactively paid a couple months after school starts.

the plaintiff had moved his residency to Texas or Florida or another state where taxes are less, including auto registration, etc., and then deployed to Afghanistan. You can retain your state residency or shift it as you move with the military, and they will move you back to your home state or any place closer when you get out. My guess is this guy shifted his residency when he was homeported in Florida for tax reasons as is common, without thinking of the downstream ramifications.

It says on this page you must remain a resident (most likely measured by filing taxes and through auto registration) to get in state tuition: http://www.ro.umich.edu/resreg.php

And here they offer the opportuntyi to apply for in state tuition for service members and their families if they are stationed in Michigan: http://vets.umich.edu/content/special-tuition-waiver-full-time-military

Agreed, the press should have done a little more digging to establish the facts.

Of course, all that said, if the guy was in for four years and had previously resided in Michigan and paid taxes his whole life - well I could see doing the right thing for a service member. If he was in for ten and had early on shifted residency, well that is another deal.

Obviously this is a complicated situation and I don't think we're getting the full story here, but how exactly does this statement totally exonerate the university?

Other than the statement about veteran enrollment numbers, there are no factual rebuttals in the Univerity's statement. All they say is, don't worry guys, we try really hard to be nice to veterans. That's not really their fault, because of privacy laws, but it doesn't really solve the mystery either.

I suspect that the others here with military experience are correct and this guy probably changed his official state of residency at some point during his service, but the University statement gives us no clarification there. Of course, even then it would be nice if the University had a way to give in-state tuition for guys who only changed their residency because they were ordered into active duty (particularly since it doesn't sound like military personnel pay taxes on active duty pay in Michigan anymore).

In summary, I don't think the University is in the wrong, or at least not as wrong as the article made them out to be, but I'm confused why this boilerplate PR department letter has us suddenly all saying "oh they are totally cool why did I ever doubt them?"

....work at WDIV?

So I have a suggestion.  Use not just the word "discrimination" but the phrase:  "discrimination or shoddy journalism?" (or something like that)

I even wonder if the word discrimination is appropriate here.  Is there any real evidence that the U treated a member of the military more poorly than the average student--who certainly may have his own complaints about out-of-state status?  Or is the question really whether the U did not give a member of the military "special treatment?".   One can certainly argue that he deserves the latter, but that would not be discrimination, IMO.

I can say that Michigan's residency policy (in non military situations) is skewed in favor of pushing for out of state tuition. My wife lived out of state for 3 years while she got her graduate degree at a private school. She worked for about a year before coming back to michigan.

She decided to change careers and go back to michigan, and by the time she reapplied she had; went to michigan for undergrad, has always had a michigan license, paid taxes in michigan all but one year of her working life, owned a house in michigan for 4 years, worked at the university for 3 years, and still had to fight to not pay out of state tuition because of her grad school.

To top it off, after completing her second degree and applying to the grad program at michigan, she again was first listed as out of state. Again, this was fixed, but I can understand how the university can make mistakes regarding in state and out of state residency status.

I wish he would have explained exactly what the Yellow Ribbon program IS.  It's a program where the University and the VA kick in together to cover tuition charged over and above resident tuition.  So even if you don't qualify for resident tuition, you aren't negatively affected by that (assuming your service qualifies).  

It's sad that WDIV didn't get reaction from the university before doing the story or didn't say that the university hadn't responded to requests (if that was the case).

That said, the university should not be classifying state residents who served in the military as non-residents for tuition purposes. It happened to me when I was a student and I thought it was a fluke. In the wake of this most recent incident, I'm learning that it's also happened to many others. If its not university policy, the university needs to stop doing it.