The woes of Ontario’s education fees

Opt-out policy targets student activism and distracts from significant barriers to educational access

On January 17, the Ford government announced that students will now be allowed to opt out from paying fees that fund organizations such as clubs and student unions. The government claimed that the goal of this policy change was to make higher education more accessible. However, having the option to opt out threatens the basic functioning and very existence of student groups, including organizations which hold the government and university administrations accountable. 

If students can pick and choose which groups to support, these organizations will be underfunded. Incidental fees are mandatory for the same reason that public education and healthcare are funded through taxes. If people are given the option to avoid paying for these services, some people will decide to opt out. This results in more students following suit, because they know they will end up receiving underfunded services even if they do pay.  

Doug Ford’s government clearly understands this logic, because the new policy preserves mandatory fees for some services they consider to be essential, which include “walksafe programs, health and counselling, athletics and recreation, and academic support.”¹ On the other hand, student unions, advocacy groups, and campus media were not mentioned. The government’s implementation of this policy starves such student groups of funding. 

A functional student government and free press are necessary democratic institutions for a university, and they should be considered essential. Students need organizations that will lobby on their behalf and represent their interests. They also need campus media to do a detailed job of reporting on student issues, which often fall under the radar of mainstream outlets. Historically, student protests have been influential in pushing for social change and challenging the government. The opt-out policy is a direct threat to student activism, which is to Ford’s advantage. 

Clubs are also arguably a fundamental part of the university experience, providing benefits such as social connections, job and networking opportunities, and the chance to build leadership and teamwork skills—all of which are now under existential threat. 

The Ford administration claimed that this policy “[gives] students choice regarding where their money is spent.”² But in reality, if students can selectively fund organizations, some groups will no longer be able to function, which would ultimately reduce the number of choices available to students. The survival of structures as basic as student unions and the student press could become conditional on widespread student approval. We vote for elected officials in order to support those who best represent us, but we do not consider whether the government should be allowed to exist at every election cycle. This policy is presented in a way that makes it seem like students are currently unable to choose which groups to support, but we already have channels to voice disagreements through voting and assembly. 

In addition, groups that represent marginalized voices like those of BIPOC and LGBTQ+ communities might see their funding unfairly and disproportionately targeted due to racist and homophobic views rather than legitimate disagreements with their positions. The existence of these threats is the very reason these groups need to have a secure source of funding so that they can continue to advocate for underrepresented perspectives and work toward social change. 

Funding generated from student fees is crucial to the independence and transparency of student groups. If groups lose revenue from student fees, they will become reliant on alternative sources, such as funding from the university or the government. This would greatly restrict the ability of these organizations to be critical of the administration. The Ford government stated that the opt-out policy will “ensure transparency,” but it will instead accomplish the opposite. Furthermore, it will be up to universities to specify what they consider to be non-essential services from which students can opt out.³ When the same groups that hold the administration accountable are dependent on its leaders’ approval for their funding, their ability to express criticism is compromised. 

However, it is true that incidental fees can add up. There needs to be more discussion about the appropriate balance between ensuring that organizations receive enough revenue from students in order to maintain their autonomy and making sure that these fees are low enough to be accessible. The opt-out policy may allow students to reduce the ticket price of the fees they pay, but it is unnecessarily disruptive to the organizations that make up student life. If the government were truly concerned about incidental fees posing a barrier to accessible education, they could have implemented fee subsidies to help lower-income students or considered a progressive fee structure which lowers fees for lower-income students and increases fees for those who can afford it. Instead, Ford’s government is weaponizing post-secondary education in order to weaken critical student groups to their benefit.  

Ontario students pay the highest tuition rates in Canada but receive the lowest proportion of their funding from government grants: 36 percent in the 2017 fiscal year. This makes Ontario institutions more dependent on tuition as a revenue stream, which represents 56 percent of universities’ income, the highest percentage among the provinces.⁴ Increasing government support for universities, especially in light of the ten percent tuition cut that will cost universities and colleges an estimated 440 million dollars in lost revenue, would have a far more significant impact on the affordability and quality of higher education.⁵ Framing this issue as students overpaying incidental fees is nothing more than a distraction from the larger issue of the soaring cost of education in this province. 

Targeting the core functioning of these organizations hinders the ability of both current and future student leaders to do anything at all. Doug Ford is allowing disagreement to be reason enough for disbandment, and in doing so, he is threatening the very structures that promote discourse.