As long as core educational benefits reach every student and tuition remains as low as practicable, the command is satisfied. North Carolina’s approach reaffirms higher education as a fundamental benefit, which is provided to citizens to the fullest extent possible.
A curious statement in the North Carolina State Constitution provides that higher education be offered “as far as practicable” free of expense to the citizens of North Carolina. Recently, the UNC Board of Governors voted to increase undergraduate tuition rates by three percent, which averages to a one hundred and twenty-five dollar increase per in-state student. But could this increase violate Article IX section 9 of the North Carolina Constitution? The Board of Governors maintains that the hike is necessary because of looming fiscal cliffs and potential cuts in state appropriations. As tuition pressures continue to build, an examination of the constitutional imperative and limited case law may provide insight into the issue.
Historical Outline of the North Carolina Constitution
The origins of North Carolina’s constitutional commitment to accessible higher education trace to the 1776 Constitution. This first version directed the legislature to encourage all useful learning through the promotion of one or more Universities. It emphasized public instruction without an explicit mandate for free access. The 1776 North Carolina Constitution provided,
That a school or schools shall be established by the Legislature, for the convenient instruction of youth, with such salaries to the masters, paid by the public, as may enable them to instruct at low prices; and all useful learning shall be duly encouraged, and promoted, in one or more universities.
To implement this, the General Assembly chartered the University of North Carolina in 1789, providing funding using escheats (the state’s right to claim abandoned property) as a revenue source. This cautious approach aligned the General Assembly’s aversion to taxation for non-essential purposes and positioned UNC as a trailblazer for education in good governance.
In 1805, the Supreme Court of North Carolina decided Trustees of University of North Carolina v. Foy, striking down a legislative attempt to seize the University’s escheated property. Focusing on the Law of the Land Clause, the court safeguarded vested property rights, affirming the Constitution’s protective intent toward educational institutions and the drafters’ focus on shielding the UNC system.
The shift toward affordability came in the 1868 Constitution during Reconstruction. It introduced language requiring education to be “free of expense,” which mandated that university benefits be extended as far as practicable without tuition costs to citizens. Republican drafters incorporated humanitarian ideas for post-slavery equality, creating an explicit duty for the General Assembly to keep costs low. The provisions opened doors for North Carolinians, including newly freed African Americans, and spurred broader reforms.
The 1971 Constitution expanded the commitment to the consolidated UNC System and other public institutions. It created a scholarship fund for worthy and needy students funded with proceeds from escheated property. These changes transformed the original encouragement into an aspirational guarantee of tuition-free higher education where practicable. This provision applies solely to the UNC System and public institutions, not private colleges. History reveals consistent drafter intent to protect and promote the UNC System as a public good.
Understanding the Benefits of Higher Education and What “as Far as Practicable” Means
The first step in interpreting any constitutional text is to identify what is expressly stated and what phrases remain ambiguous. Textual analysis requires that unambiguous words and phrases receive weight. Under the North Carolina Constitution, any power not explicitly restricted is reserved by the legislature. This creates a presumption of constitutionality for the actions taken by the General Assembly, unlike the U.S. Constitution which acts as a limited grant of power to the federal government from the states. This shifts the burden of proof to plaintiffs to prove that the legislature is explicitly restricted from doing something.
Article IX section 9 provides that the General Assembly “shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.” The two most ambiguous phrases are the “benefit” that universities confer upon students and the requirement that the university be, “as far as practicable,” free of expense.
This textual requirement, that the General Assembly provide such benefits, mandates that the core offerings of public universities remain accessible without prohibitive costs. The clause ties the benefits to the educational mission which implies instruction, curricula, and academic resources that foster the educational development of students. Higher education benefits include the acquisition of knowledge, critical thinking, and professional preparation for particular careers.
University missions reflect this focus. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s mission statement emphasizes serving “as a center for research, scholarship, and creativity and to teach a diverse community.” East Carolina University’s mission statement focuses on using “innovative learning strategies” to “prepare students with the knowledge, skills and values to succeed in a global, multicultural society.” North Carolina State University’s mission centers on “excellent teaching, the creation and application of knowledge, and engagement with public and private partners.” Together, these mission statements emphasize core educational concepts and community outreach, rather than pure social development or athletics.
The phrase “as far as practicable” functions as a directive for the legislature to fund institutions sufficiently to keep tuition nominal. It imposes a restriction on legislative action, mandating affordability by forbidding prohibitive tuition. The clause does not demand completely free access. Instead, it implies a balance between fiscal restrictions and costs. Practicability involves assessing what is reasonably achievable given state resources while committing to accessibility. Costs should remain low enough to avoid excluding qualified students. Scholarly interpretations note the clause aimed to democratize university attendance post-Civil War by reducing tuition barriers. The core concept aligns with the Constitution’s intent to ensure education is not limited by economic status but does not mandate zero expense education in all circumstances.
How Tuition Is Currently Used and Constitutional Compliance
The North Carolina Constitution requires analysis of tuition to expenditure ratios at higher education institutions and legislative appropriations. Such analysis applies the current funding and tuition to the rules to determine if universities are funded according to constitutional prerogatives. North Carolina maintains one of the nation’s lowest in-state tuition rates, due in part to its requirement to fulfill Article IX section 9. Yet long term declining state appropriations, combined with reliance on tuition revenue, strains the constitutional requirement that higher education be free of expense to the maximum extent practicable. This tension raises justiciable questions courts have yet to address.
Tuition at UNC institutions supports core educational benefits for every student including faculty salaries, academic resources, and instructional programs. The UNC System delivers these benefits at rates among the lowest in the country for in-state students. Recent increases such as the three percent allotted increase for the UNC System may draw criticism. But, this is the first increase in tuition rates since 2017, meaning factors such as inflation and operational cost increases have not been adjusted for in nearly a decade. Despite staggering inflation, the UNC System has not significantly shifted the primary burden to students in a way that violates the practicability standard.
Conclusion
Tuition increases for in-state students matter greatly in North Carolina. The North Carolina Constitution has had an embedded commitment to accessible higher education for more than two centuries. From the 1776 encouragement of useful learning through the 1868 mandate of free of expense access and the 1971 consolidation of the UNC System, the constitutional text signals that higher education is a public good not limited by economic barriers. The recent increase highlights tension between fiscal realities and the state’s constitutional directive. However, it also underscores how the state cares for higher education through a protective constitutional provision.
Effects ripple across in-state and out-of-state tuition. In-state rates fulfill the constitutional promise while out-of-state tuition subsidizes costs without burdening North Carolina residents. The UNC System maintains low in-state tuition to honor the framers’ intent to provide public education to North Carolinians. As long as core educational benefits reach every student and tuition remains as low as practicable, the command is satisfied. North Carolina’s approach reaffirms higher education as a fundamental benefit, which is provided to citizens to the fullest extent possible.
