In the end, the posturing done by lawmakers in the battle for the university’s state funding ultimately had no effect on the legality of what the state ruled because the state budget director found the university complied with the tuition increase guidelines.

But why was this fight necessary?

Did lawmakers really think the rebate offered by the university actually was going to happen ever again? If they did, what in heaven made them believe such a thing? There’s been zero talk of another round of stimulus since the country got dangerously close to defaulting on our financial obligations, and that stimulus was the impetus for the rebate the university offered.

And if lawmakers understood there wasn’t another round of rebates coming, why argue with such vehemence for the funding? Is the state so hard up for cash right now we can’t even spare money to invest in the people who are going to make the state a better place in the future? Did the state really think MSU just didn’t care about the students?

If the state wants to claim MSU is hurting students by overcharging them, that’s acceptable. But if state legislators really wanted to protect students, they wouldn’t be gutting the budget for higher education.

Students are affected more drastically by the sudden loss of public funding than tuition increases. I accept that higher tuition is the cost of obtaining a college degree in America. I’m not happy about it, but I’m resigned to it. However, I find it more difficult to accept that the state suddenly values supporting higher education less than it previously did. Tuition hikes happen, but the university wouldn’t have to hike the rates in the first place if the state hadn’t already cut more than $40 million in funding to the university.

If the state really wants to curb tuition increases, it should place the tuition-hike ceiling at 1 percent and pour money into higher education. Give universities $40 million instead of taking it away. But until that happens, the state shouldn’t concern itself with what universities have to do to remain solvent.

Yes, public universities are just that: public. But the state can’t shoot holes in the bottom of the boat and then get angry about universities using a bucket to bail out the water.

And what really irks me is that this fight might not be over. After the ruling was handed down by the state budget director, House Republicans sounded dismayed MSU had exploited some sort of invisible loophole. That dismay easily could turn into retaliation, and the next time those House Republicans sit down to make a budget, the university could be looking at even deeper cuts than before. The realization that the people who make our laws actually are that petty — and undoubtedly would retaliate — makes me weep a little on the inside.

Michigan is starting to turn it around. Unemployment has been decreasing slowly, but steadily. The Big Three’s sales all rose more than 7 percent over the last month (And Chrysler Group LLC’s sales rose 20 percent). There’s light at the end of the tunnel, which means this is no time for retaliation. There’s no need for the state to punish students with more cuts to higher education because MSU “won.”

If the state really wants to protect students from higher tuition and ensure students are getting the best education, there should be no second round in this tuition rate fight.

Lazarus Jackson is the State News opinion writer. Reach him at jacks920@msu.edu.