One of the most common assertions made by student organizations and activists arguing for the elimination of tuition fees is that there is a universal right to education, and therefore, that charging or raising tuition fees is immoral, or even a violation of a fundamental human right. By this logic, the debate over tuition is no longer a budgetary question, but an abstract moral issue cast in terms of right and wrong, and not in terms of real-world constraints.
While almost no one disputes the first part of that argument—that a right to education exists—the idea that this extends to free post-secondary education is questionable. The right to elementary education is grounded in international law, but a right to free higher education has no clear basis. The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that everyone has a right to education, yet beyond that it is more careful, stating that education should be free, but not necessarily at the post-secondary level. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights suggests that states move towards introducing free higher education, but recognizes that its implementation is subject to material constraints. Countries around the world have been moving in the opposite direction, suggesting that the political and budgetary constraints are considerable. More importantly, it envisions free higher education not as a right itself, but as a means to achieving equally accessible education, which can be done in other, more efficient ways.
Clearly then, no definitive right to free higher education is codified in international law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains nothing on the subject. Yet regardless of whether it’s actually spelled out, the idea behind such a right just doesn’t make sense.
There is a clear divide between primary and secondary education, on the one hand, and post-secondary on the other. Most of us agree that primary and secondary education should be free. But everyone has the right to go to primary and secondary school, and up to a point it’s compulsory. There is no merit qualification needed to attend either. However, not everyone has the right to go to university—everyone who qualifies on merit does. Instead, every qualified candidate has the right not to be denied a place for financial reasons. We can ensure that access to higher education is meritocratic—without university being free for everyone —by subsidizing those who cannot pay, while making those who can, share in the cost of their education.
If there’s no need to fully subsidize every university student, then why should we? Taxpayer subsidization of post-secondary education is regressive, as lower-income individuals finance disproportionately well-off students and soon-to-be high-income earners.
The usual argument for why we should is that higher education is a public good. Although that’s not strictly true in the economic sense —we can easily exclude those who don’t pay from the full benefits—there’s no doubt that post-secondary education contributes to the public good. A better educated population has well-known, quantifiable social benefits, but equally significant are the private benefits to graduates, in the form of higher average earnings. And while it’s almost impossible to quantify what portion of the overall benefit this accounts for, it’s obviously more than zero, and is clearly significant—suggesting students should pay part of the cost.
Making higher education equitably accessible is a noble goal and can be achieved through a fairer, more progressive cost structure. Instead of arguing that university should be free across the board, and shrouding it in a vague discourse of rights, we should look for solutions that are both just and realistic.
