The rationale for this is clear: the council is hoping that students will not bother with all the hassle, thus providing it with money to dispose of at its discretion. Although the council may not have deliberately set up every procedural roadblock which students have to overcome, it has done nothing to alleviate the problems. In fact, it has a vested interest in maintaining this system in which students are effectively prevented from obtaining refunds.

For the sake of fairness and efficiency, the council should not make it more difficult to get a refund. Term bills should provide students with the option of contributing to the council.

Indeed, the council's status as a 501-C3 non-profit organization means that it solicits voluntary contributions for support. If the council charges students $20 on the term bill and then makes it virtually impossible for them to get a refund, the money students pay cannot fairly be called a contribution.

Allowing students the option of contributing to the council would benefit the council as well. Most students do not believe the council does anything of value and would likely not contribute to it, which would cause an immediate decline in revenues. This means that the council would not be able to waste money if it wished to continue receiving contributions.

Two things could happen. First, students might not be affected by the council's decreased spending. This would show that the students made the right choice by not contributing.

But if the council as it stands really has an impact on student life, then students would notice a dramatic decline in activities. If this were to happen, contributions would likely increase the next year, or independent student groups might pick up the slack, organizing activities and securing funding in a less devious manner.

Either way, the students would have activities and the council would have less money to waste.