I don't really see your point in this example. It seemed like you were trying to argue about unfairness towards poor students when the reason fees are higher than tuition for some students is due to awards that can nearly eliminate tuition completely, which of course would then make fees, however small, greater than the cost of tuition. It doesn't really make as much sense to deal with fee costs relative to tuition costs as opposed to absolute costs when thinking of what poorer students can overall afford. Also, many schools will not be as cheap as $6470 for in-state residents, and many of the poorer students will likely not receive the maximum awards available.
If the point of plans for tuition-free higher education is to reduce the overall costs for poorer students in achieving a higher level of education, does it really matter if those reductions come from fees or tuition? They will both add up to a net cost for the student. This isn't to say that added fees on top of tuition are a good idea, but that a move to eliminate tuition for poorer students is clearly carried out with the interests of students in mind. I don't think a student will particularly care whether he saves $2500 from fee reductions or from tuition eliminations.