This argument seems flimsy and not well thought through. I think the authors have buried their political stance beneath a rhetoric that pretends to have an interest in student issues; when they are actually concerned about furthering a political outlook.
Take for example the following statement made by the authors:
"Perhaps the most frustrating repercussion of this entire campaign is that not all students would benefit from it, and some could actually be harmed by it.
Many professional and graduate programs have historically had more flexibility to charge higher tuition fees. With this system in place, policies proposed by Drop Fees might not benefit professional programs like nursing, engineering and medicine, for example. "
    I'm confused. Is stifling the ability of various programs to charge higher fees a problem? Do they want people to pay more for tuition as individuals? I think that, strangely the answer is yes. The argument that Drop Fees 'might not' benefit programs, followed by no explanation or substantiation doesn't really convince anyone of the threat that Drop Fees allegedly poses. But what can one expect, when there are leaps in logic or assumptions of this variety, ideology is not far behind.
    To further flesh this out just take a look at their statement:
"Another hole in the Drop Fees initiative is created by the call to increase the number of faculty per student. This serious issue, which many students relate to with frustration,   comes into conflict with the first campaign objective."
    All this does is points out that we, as a society, undervalue education and the role of the educated therein. I'm not frustrated with the demand to drop fees because of this contradiction; I'm frustrated that the government and societal choice to underfund my education is making me make this choice to begin with. Asking for more professors, as well as to pay less money (through tuition) is not an inherent contradiction.
It is only a contradiction if you apply conservative logic that says schools must be run like a business--which they most certainly are not. Schools, like transit and sewers and clean water, to name a few public services, are not businesses and are not generators of revenue and are not fiscal markets. We realized over a hundred years ago that schools function best and make society most fair when they are run publicly. Public schools--including universities--assure access to education, something which is stifled by charging more money (in any way) and having too few professors. I guess you'd have to disagree with the idea that the only market at schools is the market of ideas to see the demand for the best and most accessible education possible as a bad thing.
 Finally, I'm both confused and a little bewildered by the logic at play in their argument for not re-purposing the Ontario textbook grant into a general revenue source that will drop overall tuition fees. Again, pretending to have the interests of needy students in mind, these authors would rather pit needy students against the larger student body--those working jobs or not in need of OSAP--rather than see tuition decrease overall (something which would make it more accessible to begin with). That text-book fund is a waste and was likely spent on little more than beer by most of us anyway. Why not pool it and start the argument for more government funding overall? Pooling that money and arguing for an overall increase in education funding IS looking out for the interests of all students--something they claim is not being done in their concluding statement.
This whole piece seems to be pro-corporatist conservatism posing as progressive pragmatism--neither in my world, nor in any world for that matter. Education costs, I think the authors need to realize that and simply come to terms with it. Taxes happen, deal with them. We should be talking about what we value in education rather than trying to valuate it.