In Kirk v. Regents of University of California (1969) 273 Cal. App. 2d 430, Division Two of the First Appellate District addressed a constitutional challenge to the predecessor statute to section 68000 et seq. There, a nonresident student at the University of California contended that the state statutory rules for establishing residency for purposes of paying a reduced tuition fee violated her constitutional right of interstate travel. (Kirk, at pp. 432-433, 437.) The court held that the durational residence requirement did not infringe on the right to travel. The court first concluded, as a matter of law, that the statutory requirements did not have a tendency to deter people from moving into the state. Next, the court determined that the durational residence requirement for reduced tuition at publicly financed institutions was not equivalent to residence requirements for welfare benefits which were found to violate equal protection in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) 394 U.S. 618. 22 L. Ed. 2d 600, 89 S. Ct. 1322 "While we fully recognize the value of higher education, we cannot equate its attainment with food, clothing and shelter. Shapiro involved the immediate and pressing need for preservation of life and health of persons unable to live without public assistance, and their dependent children. Thus, the residence requirements in Shapiro could cause great suffering and even loss of life. The durational residence requirement for attendance at publicly financed institutions of higher learning does not involve similar risks. Nor was petitioner (unlike the families in Shapiro) precluded from the benefit of obtaining higher education. Charging higher tuition fees to nonresident students cannot be equated with granting of basic subsistence to one class of needy residents while denying it to an equally needy class of residents." (Kirk, supra, 273 Cal. App. 2d at p. 440.)