Caitlin Hall Opinions Editor

Yesterday morning, a group of four UA students filed a complaint with the Pima County Superior Court alleging that the tuition hike approved by the Arizona Board of Regents last spring is unconstitutional. The students ÷ John Kromko, Rachel Wilson, Adrian Duran and Sam Brown ÷ have stated their intention to file a class-action lawsuit against ABOR and the State of Arizona in order to have the hike rescinded and the money made up with nonexistent funds from the state Legislature.

The students have charged that raising tuition was illegal because of a clause in the state constitution that says the Legislature should ensure that public higher education be "as nearly free as possible."

So we should be relieved, right? These righteous liberators of college pocketbooks have taken it upon themselves to fight stingy legislators and uncompassionate Regents on behalf of us all ÷ we, the poor, defenseless, as-yet-uneducated students of Arizona's universities. How kind of them.

Before we allow ourselves to be carried away on our heroes' white horses, however, perhaps we should ask ourselves just what our chivalrous saviors are liberating us from.

They, of course, would have us believe that they are freeing us from an undue financial burden imposed by a negligent state Legislature. However, what these looters in lamb's clothing fail to realize is that "burden" and "responsibility" are not one and the same.

When that fact is acknowledged, it becomes clear that it is not the Legislature or ABOR doing the robbing, and it is not the earnings of

students that are being robbed. Instead, it is those who oppose the hike who are stripping students of something far more important ÷ the notion of earning itself. The only sense in which they are "relieving" us of responsibility is the same sense in which one "relieves" a stranger's house of its television set.

Granted, the UA is a public institution. There's nothing that can be done ÷ short of a constitutional amendment ÷ to change the fact that Arizona taxpayers are legally bound to pay for the education of pretty much anyone who demands it. However, there is also nothing ÷ "nearly free" clause included ÷ that says they're required to pay for all of it.

What does "as nearly free as possible" mean, after all? Does it mean that we should loot every lootable dollar from tax-paying residents and give them to students choosing to continue their education?

Or does it instead mean that the state should create a subsidy for higher education large enough lighten the economic load of college tuition but small enough to keep from rightly enraging the millions of people strong-armed into forking over their money in the name of future financial gains ÷ the product of education ÷ for others?

Regardless of what level ABOR sets for tuition, regardless of how much money the state Legislature decides to allocate for universities, the fact remains that education is not free, or anything near it. This fact seems to escape the students who will soon file suit because their education has not been made "as nearly free as possible."

The money required to operate and maintain three large universities will not appear in state coffers merely because the plaintiffs will it into existence. So the question becomes, "Free for whom?"

One of our dauntless defenders, John Kromko, explained in a press release, "Needy students should have help, but that help should be provided by the state government, not by taxing other students." If these students claim there's a societal obligation to pay for poor students to go to college, why do they vehemently reject the idea of asking other students to pay for it? Because what they want is for everyone to pay for education ÷ their education ÷ because they believe they have a right to it.

Where does the right to other people's money come from? These students recognize, with proper outrage, that they are being forced to sacrifice their money to the sole benefit of their peers. Illogically, the solution they propose isn't to put and end to the plunder, but to claim the right to steal from everyone.

The idea that society or any member of it owes anyone an education is ludicrous. Those electing to continue with school trade the product of their labor ÷ money ÷ for the tools to make more of it in the future; no one has a right to the unearned reward of education.

Claims that higher education is "necessary" or "vital to the improvement of society" are irrelevant.

These students want tuition to be "as nearly free as possible?" If last semester's hike is nixed, the irony is that, for once, they'll be getting what they pay for ÷ nothing. A free education by the means these students propose ÷ one that counsels against personal responsibility ÷ is worthless.

Caitlin Hall is a biochemistry and philosophy sophomore. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.