Court frees students to make political, ideological stands

Court frees students to make political, ideological stands

Ruling allows Cal’s student government to use mandatory fees

By Brooke Olson

Daily Bruin Staff

In a move many students feel will open the gateway to freedom of
expression, a state Superior Court judge ruled last month that the
UC Berkeley undergraduate government could take political and
ideological stances and back those positions with money from
mandatory student fees.

The ruling frees Berkeley’s student government from the strict
state Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Regents. That ruling
forbids the use of mandatory fees for religious, political or
ideological purposes.

Although UCLA student government leaders are encouraged by the
decision, legal experts said the ruling will not affect the campus,
nor will it override the Smith case.

"The Berkeley case is a Superior Court ruling and that cannot
overrule a Supreme Court ruling," said Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law
professor.

Berkeley’s student government also faces an additional hurdle
with the UC Regents’ decision to appeal the ruling.

But despite the appeal, Berkeley undergraduate President Jeffrey
Cohen said the ruling was a tremendous victory.

"Students have the right to express their views and this
decision shows a big shift towards a more university-wide
acceptance of the First Amendment in relation to the students,"
Cohen said.

UCLA undergraduate government members were also pleased with the
decision, saying that it reaffirmed their belief in students’
rights to engage in political activities.

"The university is realizing that students have the right to put
their money together and use it to speak out on issues of
education," said York Chang, the council’s undergraduate
president.

However, law Professor Stuart Biegel cautioned that the ruling
would have no affect on UCLA’s funding policies since the
university is still subject to the Smith decision.

"The trial court decision will have a direct impact on Berkeley
only because the case itself only deals with Berkeley’s
undergraduate government," Biegel said.

And unless UCLA follows Berkeley’s example, student governments
must continue to provide a refund mechanism for students who feel
their fees have been used for political purposes.

To receive a refund, a student must fill out an application
detailing the political, religious, or ideological activity engaged
in by student government and prove that they have payed their
fees.

If the request is approved, a credit is issued to a Bruin Gold
account within 10 days of the request.

Rejected requests can be appealed to the Graduate Student
Government for further review, a process some students feel is
time-consuming and ultimately unrewarding.

"It’s stupid to have to write a long essay on why an
organization violated my rights simply to get two bucks back," said
Jamie Knacks, a second-year neuroscience student.

The maximum refund is $5.50.

Chang argues the process is legitimate and is necessary to
prevent "random students from wandering into the office and
demanding money."

"This process rewards those who have serious complaints instead
of those who just want some extra cash," he added.

Some students, however, said a refund should not be available at
all. As one student pointed out, it’s the politicians job to
distribute public money and the voters’ responsibility to keep
elected officials accountable.

"The way to deal with politicians who don’t spend the money the
way that you want them to is to vote them out of the office – not
ask for a refund," said Michael Kruppet, a third-year political
science student.

Still others contend that refunds are inappropriate because
student government supports issues directly related to
education.

"Each issue that the undergraduate government works on affects
students, whether it be fee hikes or affirmative action," said John
Du, the council’s external vice president.

Despite the dispute over refunds, the Smith v. Regents decision
comes down to the struggle between the right to fund a political
activity and the right for students to have control over their
money.

"It’s just about student’s right to speech," Chang said. "And it
involves the right of students to put their money together
collectively and use it to improve the quality of education at the
university."Comments to [email protected]