Court decisions alter funding of student groups

By Scott B. Wong
Daily Bruin Staff

The University of Wisconsin will present revisions to its
mandatory student fee system Feb. 14 to U.S. District Court Judge
John C. Shabez, who ruled in December that the system was biased in
its allocation of funds to student groups.

Shabez gave the university 60 days to comply with his ruling or
face the threat of having the entire fee system eliminated.

“We must present changes to our system to render it more
viewpoint-neutral,” said Patricia A. Brady, deputy legal
counsel of the University of Wisconsin System.

The case has been legally disputed since 1996, when Wisconsin
students, led by Scott Southworth, filed a lawsuit against the
university, stating the mandatory fee system violated their First
Amendment rights.

Students argued the university compelled them to fund student
groups which they politically, religiously or ideologically
opposed.

In March 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor
of the University of Wisconsin, a move that shot down
students’ arguments that had been twice upheld by lower
courts.

The Supreme Court also charged a lower federal court to assure
the university’s student fee system was viewpoint
neutral.

Shabez reopened the case after determining that student officers
responsible for allocating funds could not be viewpoint neutral,
since they were elected by the student body and had a special
interest in serving the will of that majority.

“Direct democratic referenda and representative
legislatures both produce majority determinations that necessarily
sacrifice viewpoint neutrality,” Shabez stated in his
opinion. “Such determinations are not sufficient to safeguard
diverse student speech.”

The case, which had previously been called Southworth, was
renamed the Fry case for plaintiffs Kendra Fry and Benjamin
Thompson after Southworth graduated.

So far, only a small number of students have come forward and
challenged the university’s system, Brady said.

“It’s never been a class-action suit,” Brady
continued. “It’s a small number of
plaintiffs.”

The university’s next legal action will be determined by
whether Shabez chooses to accept Wisconsin’s proposal, Brady
said.

Meanwhile, the University of California said it supports
Wisconsin’s cause.

“We supported (Wisconsin) because it upheld the discretion
of the university to make decisions about educational
matters,” said Mary Spletter, spokeswoman for the UC Office
of the President.

UCOP revised its guidelines for funding registered campus
organizations and related programmatic activities through
compulsory student fees in October 1999.

These guidelines ““ which do not include interpretations of
either the Southworth or Fry decisions ““ were established to
assist the UCs in complying with decisions of the California
Supreme Court in the 1993 Smith v. Regents case and 1995’s
U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of
the University of Virginia.

These cases ensured allocations to registered student
organizations are made on a content-neutral basis, and that a
refund mechanism exists for those whose compulsory fees fund groups
they politically, religiously or ideologically oppose.

Winston Doby, vice chancellor of student affairs, said UCLA is
urging the Undergraduate Students Association Council to review its
funding policies to ensure the university is not subject to any
legal action.