It's really a question about consciousness, rather than having or not having an option; that's what free will is about.

Free will is not why the KFC is relevant. It's relevant because it's not consistent with the reasoning they've put forward for requiring the class.

You're right--if the school is forcing some students to take that class to lose weight, and is forcing them to follow an exercise regime, it should also force them to eat healthily. But that logic only applies to the students being forced to take the class.

Managing temptation is a part of losing weight. I've been on a new diet and exercise program for about a month now, and while I did go to Burger King today, I made way better choices (a Whopper Jr with no mayo and chicken tenders with honey mustard (total: 560 calories)) than I would have before (Whopper with a medium Coke and medium fries (total: 1440 calories). My sodium, fat, and sugar were way higher than if I cooked myself, but the calories weren't that bad. Sometimes I just want something convenient, cheap, and tasty--diet or no diet.

Walking past a KFC every day, and even going in and eating something there, can be a pretty important tool. I've found it easier to modify my lifelong habits than I have to abandon them.

They're forced to take the class, that's it. I'm not saying consistency would be requiring them to eat healthy - I don't even know how that would be possible.

Their argument was the healthy environment one. If that was consistently their intention, they would have healthier options on campus.

Right. It's hypocritical to punish students for being overweight, yet at the same time market KFC to them (or allow KFC to market to them, if you like).