I've been following the debate on the new $50 per semester athletic program fee just imposed on the students at the University of Hawaii over on the local newspaper forum. Here's two of the arguments in favor of the new $50 fee followed by the counter-arguments. (*Paraphrased)
"UH students who are so disgruntled with the new athletic fee should transfer to an out-of-state university that doesn't have an athletic fee. Most universities already impose an athletic fee in addition to tuition and have been doing so for years already."
"If the regents are so dissatisfied with the university not having a compulsory athletic fee, then they, the regents, should instead transfer to an out-of-state university that already has a student athletic fee."
"Wake up already, the cost of operating UH is not covered by tuition alone, but is subsidized by the taxpayer big time. In that light, asking university students to subsidize their own UH athletic program with a measly $50 per semester athletic fee is not such a big deal as students against the fee make it out to be."
"True, UH is not self-supporting through tuition alone, and indeed heavily dependent on state taxes. However, students actually are "taxpayers" who already do their part in subsidizing the cost of operating the university when they pay sales taxes to the state when they buy groceries, as well as, state income taxes deducted from paychecks for students who work a job after school."