Spikey,
I hope you realise I was only making a sarcastic point about the ex-government's pathological hatred of the very name "union".

I also agree that dissent is a vital part of any healthy democracy and it's better to promote it openly in Universities than letting it smoulder in the back alleys out of sight where it can develop into something more sinister.

It's also sad to see much of the previous campus amentities being replaced by vending machines and multinational fast-food outlets.

wobbles said: 'I hope you realise I was only making a sarcastic point about the ex-government's pathological hatred of the very name "union".'

Of course, wobbles, and I take rugby union and the union jack as seriously as I take the marriage union.

How I pine for the good old days when university students stormed the Vice-Chancellor's office and led the anti-Vietnam war marches.

Where are today's equivalents of Barry Humphreys, Germaine Greer and Students for a Democratic Society? Swatting down by the vending machines and multinational fast-food outlets?

I think the article misses the fundamental point: when is it legitimate to impose a coercive broad-based fee not attributable to use?
Why do we accept Federal, State and Local Governments imposing mandatory charges, backed by sanctions, based on largely arbitrary criteria unrelated to expenditure? Why baulk at other entities doing the same? Why can’t the local rec centre compel users to join the adjacent bowls club? What is the basis for imposing 'tax' and who can do it?
Having suffered through compulsory SU and VSU I have seen both. I resented subsidising student activities that I had no interest in. I am a non-drinker so loathed my money being p*ssed away at O-day. I am a conservative Christian so didn't appreciate my money going to 'sexual health' (ie promiscuity) and 'alternative sexuality' (ie GLT) programmes. But the same is true of Governments - I don’t approve of everything they spend money on. The question must not be framed in terms of, 'why make everyone pay for stuff many/most don't want or use' but 'when is it acceptable to do so?' I have long forgotten my political economic theory studies (which I'm sure have canvassed this question in detail) so here are just some preliminary thoughts:
1. There must be some form of compulsive power. Obviously Governments have criminal and civil sanctions they can impose. But here the entity with the coercive power is not actually the entity imposing the fee (let's separate mandatory SU from amenities fees for the moment). Why is it legitimate for one entity with power to force payment to another? Why is it acceptable for a Uni to do it but if a Corporation did it they'd be third-line forcing?
2. How does a 'tax' become legitimate - I'll suggest, when people are accepting of their obligation to pay. That happens when people are satisfied there is good reason for expenditures to be recouped that way and most people do not feel either a) the expenditure is unjustifiable or b) their burden is unjustifiable.
This is the discussion that is needed.

J S Mill,

"when is it legitimate to impose a coercive broad-based fee not attributable to use?"

Think of compulsory third party motor insurance. You've never had a crash but you still have to pay your insurance.

Think of compulsory voting. You don't want this government but others do and you'll be fined if you don't vote.

Think of street lighting. You don't go out at night but the costs are included in your rates.

Think of paying taxes which pay for education but you don't have any kids. (Or road making but you don't drive a car; or hospitals but you are in the best of health.)

You say you don't participate in student activities. So I'm intrigued to know how you know that students p---- away your money at O week, that sexual health programs are about promiscuity.

J S Mill, here is a more direct answer to your question than Spikey's. In general, we impose a "tax" like this if the bulk of society is better off, even if a small minority is slightly worse off. If you look at Spikey's examples they all are examples of this.

In this particular case though you didn't have to be worse off. The Student Union's sponsored Christian clubs to the same degree they sponsored any other, and they also provided cheap food, cheap books, a free accommodation service, cheap dental services and so on. If your compulsory fee irritated you that much you could of got it back by taking advantage of those things. I take it you are fairly well off, and so didn't need to. This means your money went to help the less fortunate, something that should warm the cockles of any Christian heart.

And as for being philosophically opposed to some things - well that is part and parcel of this "what is best for the group" thing. Look at it from my point of view. People such as yourself who oppose sex education and contraceptives are statistically more likely to contract and spread sexual disease, and have higher rates of teenage pregnancy. I guess you are happy to make that sacrifice for your faith, but the rest of us aren't - and we make up the bulk of society. We are more than willing to spend a little money to try and protect the herd from the risky behaviours of minorities like yours.

Thanks Spiky and RStuart - this is the discussion I think this topic really needs... although I disagree with both of you ;-)
Spiky - your examples illustrate the point but shed little light on the doctrinal basis. In my much longer original version (too long to publish) I actually acknowledged and accepted your points - Governments levy charges for things which we do not all use but are all obliged to pay for. Why is it generally accepted that they can do that but the local rec. centre can't?
As for O-day, I attended Uni that day and observed it first hand. For sexual health I have to rely on others...
RStuart - this really goes more to the heart of the issue but still I don't think captures it. Ok, we are all prepared to accept some suffering for the benefit of wider society - but when, where, how and how much do we accept. Although I am far from the strict Utilitarian you seem I accept that sometimes we accept individual disadvantage for wider societal advantage. But again, why do we accept Goverments playing that role but not, say, allow the Salvation Army to impose a broad-based poverty fee?
My concern is not about return on investment - I COULD have accessed other clubs to 'get my money's worth' but didn't. That isn't the point (again, this was mentioned a bit in the longer original version). The point is - to whom do we allow the power of coercive 'taxation', and if we're prepared to extend that power to Universities, what is the philosphical basis of it so that we can tell who can have the power and who can't.
Let me add another point to my first two:
3. Is it tied to some form of direct responsiveness to the society that is being polled, that is, are we more likely to accept it as legimimate if we have a direct say in who gets to administer it? Let me suggest, this certainly adds a level of legitimacy to Government action that others don't have...