Angry college students took to the streets in droves last week under the ostentatiously verbose banner of "Strike and Day of Action to Defend Education" in order to protest cuts in state funding and tuition hikes. Invoking the idealism of the 1960s, the students claimed that they rallied to protect their "right" to education from the utilitarian machinations of the state. But was this an idealistic protest, or simply a collective temper tantrum?

Although there were scattered protests around the country, California was the best-organized (and publicized) protest, so we'll stick with that one. So, what are the facts? In response to an increasingly desperate budget situation, Governor Schwarzenegger decided to cut state funding for higher education by $600 million. At the same time, in order to compensate for the shortfall, rates would rise by 32% over two years. However you slice it, that's a pretty sizable chunk of change.

But how much is that in real terms? The state of California will still spend some $3 billion on its public universities this year. And the tuition hike? It means that students in the University of California system, who currently pay a bit more than $8,000 would see rates rise to about $11,000 per year. Meanwhile, students at a California State University campus will see rates climb from some $4,000 per year to a tad over $5,000 per year. Additionally, California spends $13,000 per student, according to the Wall Street Journal. In other words, the state is still footing well over half the bill for each student's education. This is better, the Wall Street Journal reports, than per-student spending in Illinois ($10,000) and New York ($6,000), to take two examples. Granted, no one wants to pay more for education during a budget crunch. But in a world where an unsubsidized private education can cost upwards of $51,000 per year, this sounds like a bargain-basement deal to me!

So, perhaps it's time for a reality check at this point. As a student, I have to admit that I don't want to pay more for my college education. I would be perfectly happy if rates stayed frozen for the next couple of years. So, one part of me sympathizes with the students.

On the other hand, the assumptions behind the protest bother me. Since when is cheap access to a college education a fundamental human right? Why is asking students to bear more of the costs of their education grounds for comparison to racial discrimination, as professor Ananya Ray claimed? True, a college education is a huge step up in a post-industrial world, opening doors of status and opportunity. But the fact remains that education is an economic good, a privilege received by those willing to pay for it. It's not something like life or liberty that a person is automatically entitled to by the mere fact of being human.

Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate this is through the collegiate grading system. If you do not work hard enough, you fail the course, and if you fail often enough, you get kicked out of college. Your mere presence in the classroom does not guarantee a good grade or a diploma. By contrast, almost universally-recognized rights like life and liberty flow from the mere fact of existence-there is no "failing grade" (intelligence, beauty, race, etc.) that automatically reduces a person's worth relative to another human being. As someone much smarter and less wordy than I can ever hope to be put it, "All men are created equal." Not, "All men are created for higher education."

For good or ill, the state legislature and Mr. Schwarzenegger got the message loud and clear, abandoning their proposal faster than rats leaving a sinking ship. Idealistic rhetoric notwithstanding, however, I have a hard time viewing this as little more than self-interested and collective backside-covering. Would it really hurt to pay a little more for education when your state is facing a $21 billion shortfall and you're already getting off so incredibly cheaply?