logo
Indiana State schedules public hearing on tuition fees

Indiana State schedules public hearing on tuition fees

Yahoo02-06-2025
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (WTWO/WAWV) — Indiana State University has announced it will be holding a public hearing to receive input on student tuition and mandatory student fees for the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 academic years.
Even though there will be no increase in student tuition planned for full-time undergraduate students or graduate Indiana resident students for the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 academic years, the university said non-resident full-time undergraduate and graduate students' tuition will increase by 5% in 2025-2026 and additional 5% in 2026-2027.
At last, some welcome news on college costs. Tuition has fallen significantly at many schools
The university said this increase to non-resident students' tuition 'is necessary to fund the university's operating budget.'
The Student Recreation Center fee and Student Health and Wellness fee for both academic years will remain flat at $100 and $40 per semester.
The hearing will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposed tuition and mandatory fees for the academic year as required by Indiana Code 21-14-2-8.
The public can provide comments to the university at its hearing on June 12, at 1:00 p.m. in the Stateroom located in Tirey Hall. The university asks individuals to limit comments to three minutes or less.
Student housing costs are rising. Here's how to lower your bill
The Indiana State Board of Trustees will review the public comments from the hearing and then are scheduled to vote on the tuition proposal and fees at the June 27 meeting.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US aircraft carriers should now leave the Middle East
US aircraft carriers should now leave the Middle East

The Hill

time3 hours ago

  • The Hill

US aircraft carriers should now leave the Middle East

Although the seven B-2 bombers launched from Missouri's Whiteman Air Force Base that hit Iranian nuclear facilities received the most media attention, they were accompanied by an additional 120 aircraft. These included F-35 and F-22 stealth fighters, as well as refueling tankers and various intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. Submarines also launched Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iranian targets as part of what was termed 'Operation Midnight Hammer.' All the while, the Navy had five Aegis ships operating in the region, with SM-3 interceptors that were critical elements in Israel's defense against incoming Iranian ballistic missiles. The Navy had two aircraft carriers operating in the region, with a third deploying to Europe that could also be redirected to the Middle East. Carrier-based F-35Cs provided air superiority and also acted as decoys in the strike on Iran. The massive American military operation would appear to undermine the case — which a number of senior officials in the Trump administration have long put forward — that the U.S. should pull its forces from the region in order to redirect them toward the Western Pacific to confront the increasingly potent and sophisticated Chinese threat. Yet the strike on Iranian facilities, which may yet have to be repeated, would appear to demonstrate that Washington remains enmeshed in the region for the foreseeable future. The case for the U.S. military withdrawing from the Middle East is not particularly new. As far back as the early 1990s, Secretary of State James Baker sought to have the U.S. disentangle itself from the ever-volatile Middle East. He failed, however, as have policymakers ever since. Nevertheless, despite their role in the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, it is arguable that at least one and perhaps both aircraft carriers, as well as several of their escorts, currently operating in the region could be redeployed to the Western Pacific. Even in the absence of carriers and their F-35s, the U.S. has a large remaining fighter force spread throughout the Arabian Gulf. This force — which includes F-35A, F-22, F-15 and other fighter jets — operates from Qatar's sprawling Al Udeid Air Base, Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, the UAE's Al Dhafra Air Base, as well as Kuwait. Various intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft are already stationed in the Gulf as well. Other fighter aircraft could be rotated into these bases as a given contingency might require. Similarly, tankers can be deployed to bases in the region; over 30 were repositioned in anticipation of the strike on Iran. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems could also be deployed to the Middle East to augment those already stationed there. The fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, together with the budget reconciliation package, provides for 19 new naval ships, including two attack submarines and two more Aegis ships. Yet it will take years before these ships enter the fleet, and in the meantime the Navy, at less than 280 ships, will be hard put to provide a presence in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific. Something has to give. The administration should therefore consider whether now is indeed the time to reposition part of the carrier force away from the Middle East. This is not to argue that all Atlantic-based aircraft carriers and most of their escorts should be permanently redeployed to the Western Pacific. There remain numerous requirements for carrier task forces as part of America's ongoing commitment to NATO. Indeed, so long as there is a Russian threat to the alliance — likely the case for years to come — America's aircraft carrier force will remain a critical element of NATO's deterrent. But the Middle East is another matter. There are numerous bases hosting American aircraft throughout the Arabian Gulf that could take more aircraft if necessary, giving Washington a powerful land-based deterrent. The flexibility of the submarine force adds to that deterrent. And the ability of the bomber force to transit from either American bases or Diego Garcia further underscores American power in the region. If the naval fleet were large as it had been decades ago, it would have been beneficial to supplement America's Middle Eastern forces with a carrier presence. But the fleet is half the size it was in the 1970s, and aircraft carriers in the Middle East, even as part of a major military operation like Operation Midnight Hammer, are a luxury that America can no longer afford. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.

American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea

time4 hours ago

American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- President Donald Trump campaigned on keeping the United States out of foreign wars, but it didn't take long to convince him to come to the direct aid of Israel, hitting Iranian nuclear targets with bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a submarine. Beyond the attack's immediate impact on helping bring the 12-day war to a close, experts say Trump's decision to use force against another country also will certainly be reverberating in the Asia-Pacific, Washington's priority theater. 'Trump's strikes on Iran show that he's not afraid to use military force — this would send a clear message to North Korea, and even to China and Russia, about Trump's style,' said Duyeon Kim, a senior analyst at the Center for a New American Security based in Seoul, South Korea. 'Before the strikes, Pyongyang and Beijing might have assumed that Trump is risk averse, particularly based on his behavior his first presidency despite some tough talk," Kim said. Ten days into the war between Israel and Iran, Trump made the risky decision to step in, hitting three nuclear sites with American firepower on June 22 in a bid to destroy the country's nuclear program at a time while negotiations between Washington and Tehran were still ongoing. The attacks prompted a pro forma Iranian retaliatory strike the following day on a U.S. base in nearby Qatar, which caused no casualties, and both Iran and Israel then agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. North Korea, China and Russia all were quick to condemn the American attack, with Russian President Vladimir Putin calling it 'unprovoked aggression,' China's Foreign Ministry saying it violated international law and 'exacerbated tensions in the Middle East,' and North Korea's Foreign Ministry maintaining it 'trampled down the territorial integrity and security interests of a sovereign state.' While the strikes were a clear tactical success, the jury is still out on whether they will have a more broad strategic benefit to Washington's goals in the Middle East or convince Iran it needs to work harder than ever to develop a nuclear deterrent, possibly pulling the U.S. back into a longer-term conflict. If the attack remains a one-off strike, U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region likely will see the decision to become involved as a positive sign from Trump's administration, said Euan Graham, a senior defense analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. 'The U.S. strike on Iran will be regarded as net plus by Pacific allies if it is seen to reinforce red lines, restore deterrence and is of limited duration, so as not to pull the administration off-course from its stated priorities in the Indo-Pacific,' he said. 'China will take note that Trump is prepared to use force, at least opportunistically.' In China, many who have seen Trump as having a 'no-war mentality' will reassess that in the wake of the attacks, which were partially aimed at forcing Iran's hand in nuclear program negotiations, said Zhao Minghao, an international relations professor at China's Fudan University in Shanghai. 'The way the U.S. used power with its air attacks against Iran is something China needs to pay attention to,' he said. 'How Trump used power to force negotiations has a significance for how China and the U.S. will interact in the future.' But, he said, Washington should not think it can employ the same strategy with Beijing. 'If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S., it may be difficult for the U.S. to withdraw as soon as possible, let alone withdraw unscathed,' he said. Indeed, China and North Korea present very different challenges than Iran. First and foremost, both already have nuclear weapons, raising the stakes of possible retaliation considerably in the event of any attack. There also is no Asian equivalent of Israel, whose relentless attacks on Iranian missile defenses in the opening days of the war paved the way for the B-2 bombers to fly in and out without a shot being fired at them. Still, the possibility of the U.S. becoming involved in a conflict involving either China or North Korea is a very real one, and Beijing and Pyongyang will almost certainly try to assess what the notoriously unpredictable Trump would do. North Korea will likely be 'quite alarmed' at what Israel, with a relatively small but high-quality force, has been able to achieve over Iran, said Joseph Dempsey, a defense expert with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. At the same time, it likely will be seen internally as justification for its own nuclear weapons program, 'If Iran did have deployable nuclear weapons would this have occurred?' Dempsey said. 'Probably not.' The U.S. decision to attack while still in talks with Iran will also not go unnoticed, said Hong Min, a senior analyst at South Korea's Institute for National Unification. 'North Korea may conclude that dialogue, if done carelessly, could backfire by giving the United States a pretext for possible aggression,' he said. 'Instead of provoking the Trump administration, North Korea is more likely to take an even more passive stance toward negotiations with Washington, instead focusing on strengthening its internal military buildup and pursuing closer ties with Russia, narrowing the prospects for future talks," he said. China will look at the attacks through the visor of Taiwan, the self-governing democratic island off its coast that China claims as its own territory and President Xi Jinping has not ruled out taking by force. The U.S. supplies Taiwan with weapons and is one of its most important allies, though Washington's official policy on whether it would come to Taiwan's aid in the case of a conflict with China is known as 'strategic ambiguity," meaning not committing to how it would respond. Militarily, the strike on Iran raises the question of whether the U.S. might show less restraint than has been expected by China in its response and hit targets on the Chinese mainland in the event of an invasion of Taiwan, said Drew Thompson, senior fellow with the Singapore-based think tank RSIS Rajaratnam School of International Studies. It will also certainly underscore for Beijing the 'difficulty of predicting Trump's actions,' he said. "The U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities caught many by surprise," Thompson said. "I think it demonstrated a tolerance and acceptance of risk in the Trump administration that is perhaps surprising.' It also gives rise to a concern that Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te, who in recent speeches has increased warnings about the threat from China, may be further emboldened in his rhetoric, said Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at the Washington-based foreign policy think tank Defense Priorities. Already, Lai's words have prompted China to accuse him of pursuing Taiwanese independence, which is a red line for Beijing. Goldstein said he worried Taiwan may try to take advantage of the American 'use of force against Iran to increase its deterrent situation versus the mainland.' 'President Lai's series of recent speeches appear almost designed to set up a new cross-strait crisis, perhaps in the hopes of building more support in Washington and elsewhere around the Pacific,' said Goldstein, who also is director of the China Initiative at Brown University's Watson Institute. 'I think that is an exceedingly risky gambit, to put it mildly," he said.

American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea
American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea

San Francisco Chronicle​

time5 hours ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — President Donald Trump campaigned on keeping the United States out of foreign wars, but it didn't take long to convince him to come to the direct aid of Israel, hitting Iranian nuclear targets with bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a submarine. Beyond the attack's immediate impact on helping bring the 12-day war to a close, experts say Trump's decision to use force against another country also will certainly be reverberating in the Asia-Pacific, Washington's priority theater. 'Trump's strikes on Iran show that he's not afraid to use military force — this would send a clear message to North Korea, and even to China and Russia, about Trump's style,' said Duyeon Kim, a senior analyst at the Center for a New American Security based in Seoul, South Korea. 'Before the strikes, Pyongyang and Beijing might have assumed that Trump is risk averse, particularly based on his behavior his first presidency despite some tough talk," Kim said. China, North Korea and Russia all condemn US strike Ten days into the war between Israel and Iran, Trump made the risky decision to step in, hitting three nuclear sites with American firepower on June 22 in a bid to destroy the country's nuclear program at a time while negotiations between Washington and Tehran were still ongoing. The attacks prompted a pro forma Iranian retaliatory strike the following day on a U.S. base in nearby Qatar, which caused no casualties, and both Iran and Israel then agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. North Korea, China and Russia all were quick to condemn the American attack, with Russian President Vladimir Putin calling it 'unprovoked aggression,' China's Foreign Ministry saying it violated international law and 'exacerbated tensions in the Middle East,' and North Korea's Foreign Ministry maintaining it 'trampled down the territorial integrity and security interests of a sovereign state.' While the strikes were a clear tactical success, the jury is still out on whether they will have a more broad strategic benefit to Washington's goals in the Middle East or convince Iran it needs to work harder than ever to develop a nuclear deterrent, possibly pulling the U.S. back into a longer-term conflict. US allies could see attack as positive sign for deterrence If the attack remains a one-off strike, U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region likely will see the decision to become involved as a positive sign from Trump's administration, said Euan Graham, a senior defense analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. 'The U.S. strike on Iran will be regarded as net plus by Pacific allies if it is seen to reinforce red lines, restore deterrence and is of limited duration, so as not to pull the administration off-course from its stated priorities in the Indo-Pacific,' he said. 'China will take note that Trump is prepared to use force, at least opportunistically.' In China, many who have seen Trump as having a 'no-war mentality' will reassess that in the wake of the attacks, which were partially aimed at forcing Iran's hand in nuclear program negotiations, said Zhao Minghao, an international relations professor at China's Fudan University in Shanghai. 'The way the U.S. used power with its air attacks against Iran is something China needs to pay attention to,' he said. 'How Trump used power to force negotiations has a significance for how China and the U.S. will interact in the future.' But, he said, Washington should not think it can employ the same strategy with Beijing. 'If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S., it may be difficult for the U.S. to withdraw as soon as possible, let alone withdraw unscathed,' he said. China and North Korea present different challenges Indeed, China and North Korea present very different challenges than Iran. First and foremost, both already have nuclear weapons, raising the stakes of possible retaliation considerably in the event of any attack. There also is no Asian equivalent of Israel, whose relentless attacks on Iranian missile defenses in the opening days of the war paved the way for the B-2 bombers to fly in and out without a shot being fired at them. Still, the possibility of the U.S. becoming involved in a conflict involving either China or North Korea is a very real one, and Beijing and Pyongyang will almost certainly try to assess what the notoriously unpredictable Trump would do. North Korea will likely be 'quite alarmed' at what Israel, with a relatively small but high-quality force, has been able to achieve over Iran, said Joseph Dempsey, a defense expert with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. At the same time, it likely will be seen internally as justification for its own nuclear weapons program, 'If Iran did have deployable nuclear weapons would this have occurred?' Dempsey said. 'Probably not.' The U.S. decision to attack while still in talks with Iran will also not go unnoticed, said Hong Min, a senior analyst at South Korea's Institute for National Unification. 'North Korea may conclude that dialogue, if done carelessly, could backfire by giving the United States a pretext for possible aggression,' he said. 'Instead of provoking the Trump administration, North Korea is more likely to take an even more passive stance toward negotiations with Washington, instead focusing on strengthening its internal military buildup and pursuing closer ties with Russia, narrowing the prospects for future talks," he said. China and Taiwan will draw lessons China will look at the attacks through the visor of Taiwan, the self-governing democratic island off its coast that China claims as its own territory and President Xi Jinping has not ruled out taking by force. The U.S. supplies Taiwan with weapons and is one of its most important allies, though Washington's official policy on whether it would come to Taiwan's aid in the case of a conflict with China is known as 'strategic ambiguity," meaning not committing to how it would respond. Militarily, the strike on Iran raises the question of whether the U.S. might show less restraint than has been expected by China in its response and hit targets on the Chinese mainland in the event of an invasion of Taiwan, said Drew Thompson, senior fellow with the Singapore-based think tank RSIS Rajaratnam School of International Studies. It will also certainly underscore for Beijing the 'difficulty of predicting Trump's actions,' he said. "The U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities caught many by surprise," Thompson said. "I think it demonstrated a tolerance and acceptance of risk in the Trump administration that is perhaps surprising.' It also gives rise to a concern that Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te, who in recent speeches has increased warnings about the threat from China, may be further emboldened in his rhetoric, said Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at the Washington-based foreign policy think tank Defense Priorities. Already, Lai's words have prompted China to accuse him of pursuing Taiwanese independence, which is a red line for Beijing. Goldstein said he worried Taiwan may try to take advantage of the American 'use of force against Iran to increase its deterrent situation versus the mainland.' 'President Lai's series of recent speeches appear almost designed to set up a new cross-strait crisis, perhaps in the hopes of building more support in Washington and elsewhere around the Pacific,' said Goldstein, who also is director of the China Initiative at Brown University's Watson Institute.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store