Cancelling College Grants

The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

“This past winter, 200 students from Waymarsh State College traveled to the state capitol building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various state college programs. The other 12,000 Waymarsh students evidently weren’t so concerned about their education: they either stayed on campus or left for winter break. Since the group who did not protest is far more numerous, it is more representative of the state’s college students than are the protesters. Therefore the state legislature need not heed the appeals of the protesting students.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

If one considers only short-time practical implications from the lens of short-term profit-loss for colleges, one can agree with this reasoning. However if considered from a humane perspective and taking into account the possible long-term effects, the reasoning is not very good.

The writer correctly points out that only 200 out of 12000 bothered to protest. Effectively this implies that even if the authorities do not act on the grievances of the current group, it would not cause any serious damage to the institutions as they are a minority. As reasonable this may sound, it conveniently ignores that 200 students may have the moral support of a bigger number. When the session begins after the winter break, authorities may find themselves looking at a 2000 students group with more vociferous demands just because they bungled up to sort the issue when it was small. Ignoring a problem, an enemy or a disease; however small; is not a wise thing to do.

Another aspect that is conveniently ignored is the fact that the funding may have been for economically disadvantaged pupils. It is possible that very few may have made it to the college due to their difficult circumstances. If funding is cut further, it would only hurt them. Such a move goes against the basic tenets of humanity and social justice for poor. Many brilliant but poor students would be condemned to no college education due to this elitist, high-handed approach. At most the move may save some money for colleges but in long term it may cost a lot to the nation. I would see it as being penny wise and pound foolish. 

Concluding, the reasoning tends to underestimate the problem at hand and fails to see its long term consequences. Hence I see the reasoning as logical but flawed.