The New York Times had a pair of articles last Sunday chronicling what seems to be an emerging "race to the bottom" among universities, to see who can most cut tuition, either across the board or for families under a certain income level. They also profile several schools that effectively have zero tuition.
The New York Times - "Keeping the Lid On"
The New York Times - "The (Yes) Low Cost of Education"
I've also included the full text of these articles below the cut (in case NYT changes the link or makes your register). Both of these articles are very important for campus radicals to read and chew on; it's a fantastic glimpse into the kind of "peer pressure" that goes on among colleges and universities. Up until recently, the trend was "if you raise your tuition, I'll raise mine," with the added revenue going either to prestige-building exercises (new buildings, facilities, etc.) or financial aid. And of course, there's this:
Donald Heller, director of the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Pennsylvania State, offers one reason: “There’s something we refer to in college pricing as the Chivas Regal effect. If an institution drops its price, it’s seen as a decrease in quality.”
It's sad, but it's something that's true, to a certain extent. And the NYT articles certainly show that in some cases, reducing tuition can have the opposite impact, and actually attract higher-income students, showing that as we look at our own universities, it isn't just the "sticker price" we should be worried about.
Having a good grasp of what your university's peers are doing in terms of tuition can be an effective weapon when fighting for lower tuition and more financial aid, with the goal being tuition abolition. It can also be a key part of any narrative you submit to the press. "All we're demanding X University do is what Y College and Z University have done. They all have similar endowments, so why is X being so greedy?"
But the biggest problem is not that your university "just doesn't have a big enough endowment." The biggest problem is that dealing with tuition is not on the priority list for most schools, and when it is discussed, it's usually in the context of how much it will be increased, instead of whether. If tuition reduction was a priority on par with, say, new athletic facilities, or new buildings, or expanding the student population, then I think things would be much more workable, and almost all schools would easily be able to afford significant tuition decreases. But the Boards of Trustees, comprised mostly of business leaders, would think it crazy to do so.
To push tuition reduction to the fore, it will take an organized, militant student movement on each campus (probably arm in arm with counterparts among faculty and staff), fighting for a more democratic running of the university.
Now this is pure conjecture, but I think a significant side-benefit of winning a "liberated" university, one where everyone has a meaningful, democratic say in the course of their academic and institutional lives, is that alums will feel much more connected and invested in the institution, and will be much more likely to continue to give financially or volunteer there after graduation. I think a lot of students are as likely to donate to their past schools as they would be to "give back" to a prison they just got released from. And I think that analogy is apt in more than one way...
Yesterday, Sen. Ted Kennedy and Rep. George Miller introduced the "Teaching and Research Assistants Collective Bargaining Rights Act." This bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to explicitly include Teaching and Research Assistants at private universities and colleges. From the 
