For example, approximately $20 will go towards renovating one of the on-campus dining halls. Not everyone on campus has a meal plan and not everyone on campus uses the dining halls. Yet, everyone on campus is required to pony up for a $5 million face lift for the dining hall. If the cost of operating the dining halls has increased, wouldn't it make more sense to reflect that in the price of the meal plans rather than forcing the entire student body to subsidize the renovation?
Then there's an increase in the health services fee. Notice, however, that this increase comes after the university required all students to purchase health insurance. If everyone on campus has health insurance (which pays for health care) and only students are allowed to use Student Health Services, why do we even need a health services fee (much less one that exceeds $400)? The only explanation is that the prices charged for health care at Student Health Services are too low and don't actually reflect the cost of providing medical care. So it requires a subsidy. Apparently it's not enough that I pay for my own insurance, I now must pay for someone else's.
My personal favorite is the $4 increase in the Campus Recreation fee. Marty Pomerantz, director of campus recreation, said, "We're the largest employer of students on campus, and a lot of money students pay as a fee goes back to students in the form of wages." Translation: Wealth Redistribution. Why do the little soccer referees who work for campus rec have a greater claim to my money than I do? I don't care if they're students. I'm a student too. In fact, I'm an unemployed student. I thought that would place me a little higher up the liberal hierarchy of welfare recipients.
I'll conclude by noting that there was little (if any- I don't recall any) discussion of these fee increases. It's a classic example of a back-room decision made by those who have my best interests at heart. I must say I'm touched.