If the public nature of Pennsylvania’s state-related universities is to be protected from Gov…. If the public nature of Pennsylvania’s state-related universities is to be protected from Gov. Tom Corbett’s budgetary ax, all parties must join the fight. Pennsylvania legislators are doing their part. Now it’s time for Pitt to get serious.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, House and Senate lawmakers of both parties have broadly rebuffed the massive cuts to state-related and state-owned universities written into the governor’s February budget proposal. In contrast to Corbett’s intentions — 20 percent cuts to the state system and 30 percent cuts to state-related schools — the legislature plans to keep appropriations to Pennsylvania public higher education at their current levels, although details are still in negotiation.

As if angels of truth finally stopped in Harrisburg this summer (either that or recent Treasury Department revenue to the tune of $100 million), state legislators have indicated their belief in the importance of public higher education to the Commonwealth. Revelation or not, state-related universities should not take this victory as a sign that their work is over. Rather, they should send Corbett a message: Now that its state funding will not change next year, Pitt should freeze tuition (or at least tie it to inflation).

It’s a simple but compelling idea. Corbett has contended that tuition at public institutions increases without changes in state funding and that such supposed fiscal irresponsibility invalidates universities’ claims on taxpayer money. Sure, though college tuition has increased faster than inflation for decades, the recent uptick around the country is primarily due to falling state support. By freezing tuition rates, Pitt could make this point clear. Last year’s 19 percent appropriation cut led to an 8 percent increase in in-state tuition to $15,272, and by responding to flat funding with flat tuition, Pitt can demonstrate its commitment to low costs and potentially change Corbett’s mind.

Unless we want to regularly replay the political squabbles and have Pitt administrators flooding campus with self-preservation propaganda and recruiting students for advocacy purposes (instead of studying), someone has to convince Corbett and other higher-education cynics.

And it’s not like Pitt would be alone in making such a powerful gesture. Just last week, the University of Massachusetts School of Law-Dartmouth announced it would hold tuition constant for the next three years. The decision was made out of the school’s mission to make education affordable for Massachusetts’ aspiring lawyers. “By controlling the cost of their education, we open up many more options for [students],” future UMass law school Dean Mary Lu Bilek told the National Law Journal. UMass follows the University of Texas-Austin, which in May froze tuition rates at the flagship campus for two years.

Of course, freezing tuition is harder than it sounds. In huge service and research organizations teeming with ambitious, idea-filled and salaried people — like universities — cost obligations tend to rise over time. And with universities competing with each other for tomorrow’s students, the common administrative desire to expand academic opportunities and enrich the “student experience” puts further upward pressure on costs. But if there’s ever a time for Pitt to somehow find a way to keep those costs in check, at least for the interim, it’s now.