ERC chairs at the press conference

Kyung Hee University (KHU) is continuing internal discussions over a possible tuition increase for 2026. The administration cites financial strain and rising inflation as the main reasons for the proposal, while student representatives across both campuses are reviewing and responding to the plan. The issue has expanded since the early January financial briefing, leading to debates within the Expanded Operations Committees (EOC) and Emergency Response Committees. (ERC)

From Financial Briefing to Press Conference

At the financial operation briefing session held on January 5 at the Global Campus, the University stated that a 3.19% tuition increase for this year is unavoidable. The administration also stated that the current tuition increase is not intended as a one-time measure, but that it plans to maintain a tuition hike policy reflecting inflation in the coming years.

They cited 10-20% personnel cost expansion, 3.2% facility depreciation loss, and 60-70% scholarship recipient rate as key pressures necessitating fiscal health measures. The administration also noted parallel reviews for minimizing student burdens.

Prior to the briefing, the University cited ongoing fiscal pressure, including a 40 billion won deficit in 2023, a 72.5 billion won deficit in 2024, a 5.1% tuition increase in 2025, and tuition freezes that have persisted since 2009.

Following the briefing, both campuses’ EOC ultimately voted down the 2026 tuition hike proposal. Immediately after the briefing, the Global Campus EOC passed an anti-hike resolution with 46 votes in favor, 2 against, and 3 abstentions out of 51 members present, calling for structural alternatives to the administration’s repeated deficit explanations. At the Seoul Campus EOC on January 14, the proposal was rejected with 14 votes in favor, 80 against, and 21 abstentions.

ERCs Questioning the Administration's Tuition Hike Decision Process

At the January 16 press conference, the ERC chairs from both campuses publicly opposed the University’s tuition hike stance. They raised concerns about the appropriateness of the decision-making process and the allocation of financial responsibility.

For the appropriateness of the decision-making process, the ERCs cited the timing of the announcement—delivered shortly before the scheduled Tuition Deliberation Committee meeting—as well as what they described as insufficient procedural transparency. Hwang Hee-won, the Seoul Campus ERC chair, stated that current higher education law requires consultation with student representatives in the selection of external experts for the Tuition Deliberation Committee. However, she added that “Past committee operations had provided limited opportunities for meaningful discussion with the student body, often citing administrative scheduling constraints.” She called for greater fairness and transparency in the committee’s operation.

Concerns were also raised regarding the structure of the University’s financial briefings. While acknowledging the administration’s efforts to communicate with students through such sessions, the ERCs argued that the current system functions largely as a post hoc explanation, with tuition hike decisions shared only shortly before tuition bills are issued. They called for the establishment of a permanent consultative body for prior discussion with students.

Beyond procedural concerns, the ERCs also addressed the growing financial burden placed on students. They noted that the decision signaled not a one-time increase but the continuation of a tuition hike trend, which would compound students’ financial pressure over time. The ERCs questioned the University’s choice to prioritize tuition increases over alternatives such as expanding the foundation’s financial contributions or restructuring revenue sources. Jeong Jae-woo, head of the Global Campus Central Executive Committee, stated, “We do not deny the University’s financial difficulties, but we cannot agree with a structure in which students are the first to bear the burden in resolving those difficulties.”

The ERCs further criticized the university’s decision to raise tuition in the situation that KHU could have qualified for government support under National Scholarship Type 2 by maintaining a tuition freeze. The ERCs argued that “Student burdens could have been alleviated through continued public financial support,” “the University chose an immediate tuition hike without explaining whether such burden-reduction alternatives had been considered.”

Future Response Plans

The ERC chairs also outlined their planned responses depending on the Tuition Deliberation Committee’s decision. If a tuition increase is approved, they stated that they would continue to push for the rate to be set at a level they consider reasonable. In a statement posted on Instagram on January 18, the ERCs said, “Even if a tuition hike is decided, we will continue to call for a rational increase rate.”

They further announced plans to conduct regular monitoring of how the increased tuition revenue is used. The ERCs said they would demand transparent disclosure of decision-making processes and detailed spending records of the additional revenue.

Additionally, they outlined how they would respond even if a tuition freeze is achieved. They said they would closely monitor the situation to ensure that existing welfare programs are not canceled under the pretext of a tuition freeze and that student benefits are not reduced.

The debate over a possible 2026 tuition increase has highlighted tension between the University’s financial reasoning and students’ concerns. The final decision on whether tuition will be increased for the 2026 academic year will be determined by the outcome of the Tuition Deliberation Committee meeting held on January 20.