Michigan College President Urges Higher Education Leaders to Lower Tuition Every Year: 'It's Incumbent Upon Us'

In a keynote address at the Michigan Higher Education Summit on September 24, 2026, Dr. Santa Ono, president of the University of Michigan, declared that it is 'incumbent upon' college and university leaders to lower tuition every year. 'We cannot keep passing the burden onto students and families,' Ono said, according to a transcript released by the university. 'The model of annual tuition increases is unsustainable. It is our moral and economic duty to find efficiencies and reduce costs.'

The statement comes as the average cost of tuition and fees at four-year public universities in the United States has risen by over 200% since 1990, far outpacing inflation and wage growth. In Michigan alone, in-state tuition at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor now exceeds $17,000 per year, not including room and board. Ono’s remarks signal a rare acknowledgment from a top-tier university president that the current trajectory is broken.

Ono did not provide a specific mechanism for achieving annual reductions, but he pointed to administrative bloat, redundant programs, and the proliferation of non-academic staff as areas ripe for reform. 'We have to ask ourselves: Are we serving students, or are we serving our own bureaucracy?' he asked. The University of Michigan has already taken steps to freeze tuition for the 2025-2026 academic year, but Ono argued that freezing is not enough—tuition must actually decline.

**Why It Matters** The call for annual tuition reductions strikes at the heart of the higher education affordability crisis. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, total student loan debt in the U.S. has surpassed $1.8 trillion, with nearly one in five borrowers in default. For decades, universities have justified tuition hikes by pointing to reduced state funding, increased regulatory costs, and the need for competitive amenities. Ono’s challenge flips that narrative: if universities are truly committed to access and equity, they must cut costs rather than simply demand more taxpayer money.

From a free-market perspective, the higher education sector has operated with little price discipline. Federal student loans and grants have created a moral hazard, allowing universities to raise prices without facing the consequences of consumer backlash. Ono’s proposal—annual tuition reductions—would force institutions to compete on value, not just prestige. It aligns with the liberal-conservative principle that government subsidies should not shield inefficient producers from market signals.

**FORTIS Analysis** Ono’s rhetoric is welcome, but the devil is in the details. The University of Michigan’s own budget shows that administrative expenses have grown by 35% over the past decade, while instructional spending increased only 12%. The university employs more than 40,000 staff—nearly one employee for every two students. Much of this growth is in diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, sustainability coordinators, and marketing departments. A genuine commitment to lowering tuition would require cutting these non-essential positions and refocusing resources on teaching and research.

Moreover, Ono’s call is voluntary. Without market pressure or legislative action, most university presidents will continue the status quo. The federal government could help by tying eligibility for student aid to tuition restraint, but that would expand government intervention—a trade-off that free-market advocates must weigh carefully. A better solution is to deregulate accreditation, allow new low-cost providers to enter the market, and give students portable scholarships that follow them to the cheapest accredited institution.

**Counterpoint** Critics argue that lowering tuition every year is unrealistic without significant cuts to faculty salaries or academic programs. The American Association of University Professors warns that tuition reductions could lead to larger class sizes, fewer tenure-track positions, and reduced research output. Some also contend that universities already operate on thin margins, especially public institutions that have seen state appropriations decline by 20% per student since 2000.

However, these objections ignore the inefficiencies embedded in modern university budgets. A 2024 study by the American Enterprise Institute found that public universities spend an average of $3,000 per student on administrative overhead that could be eliminated without harming academic quality. The University of Michigan, with its $20 billion endowment, has ample room to cut costs before touching faculty salaries. The real obstacle is political will, not financial necessity.