Ron DeSantis Is Giving Certain Students a Break on Tuition. Blue States Should Take Notes.

Last week, pointing to a reported rise in antisemitic sentiment on some university campuses, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who’s at the tail end of a failing presidential campaign built on culture war, announced an emergency order that he said would offer a degree of succor. If Jewish students fear persecution due to their religious beliefs, DeSantis said, those in financial need who transfer to Florida public universities will be offered in-state tuition and have certain academic requirements waived to smooth their way.

Two could play at this game. With people losing bodily autonomy as their states have curtailed reproductive rights post-Dobbs, blue-state universities could help out-of-state students seeking refuge by implementing similar programs. State legislatures could pass laws that would offer in-state college tuition to any individual fleeing abortion bans elsewhere.

Even before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs, blue-state legislators were considering laws that would take measures to make it easier for out-of-state individuals to obtain an abortion in their states, such as reducing waiting periods, removing hurdles to abortion medications, expanding telehealth access, tightening privacy provisions, and shielding medical providers from suits from other states. Blue states can’t do the politically impossible—getting legislators in (often heavily gerrymandered) abortion-banning states to change their votes—nor can they do the fiscally improbable—paying to relocate all those wanting to flee abortion bans. These states sought instead to become abortion “safe havens” because they understood that the ethical beliefs of legislators in red states would soon deprive some individuals of the right to make their own reproductive decisions.

Public universities don’t have the authority to reform the eligibility criteria for determining who qualifies for in-state tuition. This is a good thing. It insulates them from claims that they are taking sides. Given that state citizens pay taxes that support in-state tuition rates, having elected officials in state legislatures, state boards of higher education, or state boards of regents hold the power to determine these criteria also ensures public accountability.

States often grant exceptions to this tuition divide between in-state and out-of-state students. For example, a majority of states had extended in-state tuition to nonresident military veterans even before the 2014 passage of the federal Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act, which requires this be the case at public universities that get GI Bill funding. Relatedly, over 20 states, both red and blue, provide in-state tuition to undocumented students. California recently announced a pilot program allowing low-income students living in Mexico (within 45 miles of the border) to pay in-state tuition at some of the state’s community colleges. Texas has had a similar program in place for years. Legislatures can create another such exception, offering in-state tuition to those escaping laws that decide for them whether they will carry a pregnancy to term.

While it might seem that this kind of law would incentivize too many people to switch schools, robust demand would likely only be an issue at flagship public universities, where fleeing out-of-state students would still need to be accepted and have the funds to relocate, two barriers to entry which would keep the numbers down. Similar existing programs for nonresident military veterans, undocumented students, and others have not bankrupted public universities. Legislatures could also cover any shortfalls.

Offering assistance to some is not a penalty to those who do not qualify. Colleges reduce or eliminate tuition for students in disparate economic situations. Having one’s bodily autonomy restricted is at least as important a consideration. State legislatures could limit offers of in-state tuition to only those who can get pregnant, from a list of states that restrict abortion access. This subset of students would then be given the option to attest to whether they are seeking in-state tuition because they are fleeing abortion restrictions in their home state. Certain applicants might fib, as some do when reporting their assets on financial aid documents. Yet just because all benefit programs are gamed by a few is not a reason to deny valuable assistance.

Alternately, states can consider better publicizing advice on how to establish residency, or create relevant cross-border educational partnerships. For example, the Southern Regional Education Board’s Academic Common Market lets students pay in-state tuition at select public colleges in 15 different states if their home state’s public universities don’t offer their desired program of study. Universities can create or promote other programs that offer in-state tuition in specific instances, for example to students from neighboring states.

State legislatures in anti-abortion states could replicate this idea in reverse. They can offer in-state tuition to any student who wants the opportunity to study in a place that makes it easier for them to live their ethical commitments.

Further filtering of young voters will certainly not heal our political divisions. But we should not let incalculable long-run political ramifications stop states from empowering their universities to help students in need now, while also protecting our republic by shoring up individual rights for more individuals.

If such “abortion safe-haven tuition programs” became popular, there could also be economic consequences. Students who left might never return. This would have positive economic implications for the safe-haven states, in terms of the size and educational mix of their labor pool. New Mexico and Illinois might have an opportunity to attract some of the best and brightest out of Texas and Indiana. In the long run, it might make anti-abortion states rethink their policies.

Private colleges can also play a role as safe havens by ensuring everyone knows how their tuition discount rates work in practice. They can also establish new scholarships for those fleeing abortion restrictions. Elite private colleges should also significantly expand their incoming class sizes, which would take some of the pressure off state universities.

Recent research by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation found that college students favored attending school in states that have more access to abortion by a 4-to-1 margin. Two-thirds, even, of Republican college students said they preferred to matriculate in states with fewer abortion restrictions. In-state tuition for those fleeing abortion bans could help students match their actions to their preferences—and could even help some blue and purple state school systems stave off the effects of the ever-nearer demographic cliff.