Court decision upholds use of fees to fund student groups

By George Fujii Daily Bruin Contributor

Members of UCLA’s undergraduate student government can breathe a
sigh of relief with the failure of a major challenge to how they
allocate mandatory student fees.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the use of mandatory
student fees to fund student groups in Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System v. Southworth. Scott Southworth, a former
University of Wisconsin, Madison law student, with two other
plaintiffs challenged the university’s mandatory fee system,
claiming it violated the First Amendment’s right to free speech by
using their money to support groups and causes they opposed.

Members of the Undergraduate Students Association Council were
pleased with the decision.

"This is a victory for all students," said USAC Facilities
Commissioner Steve Davey. "It reaffirms the right for all student
voices to be heard."

Similar to UCLA, UW collects a mandatory student fee which its
student government allocates to various student groups. Unlike
UCLA, however, UW’s fee is nonrefundable regardless of program
content. At UCLA, students may collect a partial refund if a
program is political, religious, or ideological in nature.

UW collects $331.50 a year in the student fee, of which 20
percent ($66.30) funds its student groups.

UCLA’s mandatory student fees total $270 per academic year, most
of which pay for Ackerman Student Union and the Wooden Center. The
USAC fee is $69, which supports registered student
organizations.

The Supreme Court held that student fees can be used to fund
student groups on a viewpoint neutral basis, which is when
"minority views are treated with the same respect as majority
views," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion.

The justices rejected Southworth’s contention that his rights
were abused when student fees funded student groups whose views he
disagreed with.

"It is not for the Court to say what is or is not germane to the
ideas to be pursued in an institution of higher learning," Kennedy
wrote.

"I would hold that the First Amendment interest claimed by the
student respondents here is simply insufficient to merit protection
by anything more than the viewpoint neutrality already accorded by
the University," wrote Justice David Souter in a concurring
opinion, signed also by Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen
Breyer.

Student government officials at both UCLA and the 26-school
University of Wisconsin system praised the decision.

The leaders of the University of Wisconsin student governments
said in a press release that they were jubilant with the Supreme
Court’s decision.

"Today is a day of celebration for free speech, campus
organizations and student fee autonomy," said Michelle Diggles,
president of the United Council of UW students and Adam Klaus,
chairman of the Associated Students of Madison. "The Court has
established a strong precedent by supporting the assertions of the
University and students that education does not end at the
classroom walls."

The Supreme Court overturned two lower court decisions. The
court, however, did not uphold the use of student referendums to
allocate funds to certain student groups, which has been done at
UW, and referred the matter to the District court.

The decision largely supports UCLA’s and the UC system’s
guidelines for allocating mandatory student fees.

The UC Guidelines for Funding Registered Campus Organizations
already state that "allocations to registered campus organizations
and related programmatic activities are made on a content-neutral
basis."

The guidelines, however, go beyond the Southworth decision by
allowing students a refund of their share of a program’s fees if
the activity is predominately political, religious or ideological
in nature.

For example, last quarter, 20 students asked for refunds for
part of their mandatory student fees after USAC voted to publish a
resolution against Proposition 22, which bans California
recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, with
those fees.

Lyle Timmerman, USAC’s administrative representative, objected
to the decision to publish the resolution on the grounds that it
was not educational in nature.

"We can’t as a student government use compulsory funds on one
side of an initiative," Timmerman said, referring to the
university’s funding guidelines.

The Supreme Court had no objections to allowing refunds of
student fees, but did not make it a requirement.

"If a university decided that its students’ First Amendment
interests were better protected by some type of optional or refund
system it would be free to do so," wrote Kennedy in the Supreme
Court decision. "We decline to impose a system of that sort as a
constitutional requirement, however."

Davey, who has previously charged that USAC allocates fees
disproportionally among student groups, said it was too early to
tell how the Southworth decision would affect UCLA.

"It would be great to use Southworth to re-examine our current
policies, but I don’t expect major changes," Davey said. "It’s up
to the university and the student government to forge the best
course from here."

The Southworth case attracted the interest of a wide range of
groups. The ACLU, AFL-CIO and the University of California Students
Association were among the groups which filed Amici Curiae briefs,
or statements of support for the University of Wisconsin’s
position. Other groups such as the Christian Legal Society and the
Liberty Counsel filed briefs in support of Southworth’s
position.

The Supreme Court based its decision in part by citing the
unique role of universities in society.

"Universities possess significant interests in encouraging
students to take advantage of the social, civic, cultural, and
religious opportunities available in surrounding communities and
throughout the country," Kennedy wrote.