Mandatory fees foster diverse marketplace of ideas

Davis is the chair of the University of California Student
Association and Barr works with the Center for Campus Free Speech
(www.campusspeech.org).

By Debbie Davis and Kathleen
Barr

The unanimous Supreme Court decision in Board of Regents of the
University of Wisconsin system v. Southworth last March was a
monumental victory for student free speech and student rights. The
case addressed the constitutionality of mandatory student fees and
the court ruled in a resounding 9-0 judgment that promoting the
open marketplace of ideas through mandatory student fees at
American universities is an integral part of the college
educational experience.

The court’s decision makes two key points. First, the
decision upholds the role of mandatory student fees as both
appropriate and constitutional to fund a broad range of student
activities that further the university’s educational
mission.

Second, the Supreme Court stipulated that the funds must be
allocated without regard to a particular organization’s
viewpoint ““ this has been deemed “viewpoint
neutrality.”

The court’s view that student activities have significant
educational value is not surprising. A fantastic variety of
cultural, political, religious and ethnic activity comes from the
campus community, including cultural festivals, service events,
musical performances and political rallies.

Student organizations and their activities provide a wide range
of experience and exposure to different points of view. In academic
circles, this forum is called the “marketplace of
ideas.” In Southworth, the court not only upheld this
“marketplace of ideas,” but also provided a simple
framework for fostering this marketplace.

  Illustration by ZACH LOPEZ/Daily Bruin Some confusion has
resulted over the court’s use of the term “viewpoint
neutrality.” One misinterpretation of “viewpoint
neutral allocation of funds” is that every student
organization that asks for money must be funded at the same level.
This is not the case ““ take an example.

No one would ever suggest that an organization, let’s say
the Bring Back Disco Club, that holds one meeting a week to listen
to and reminisce about 1970s disco music should be funded at the
same level as an organization such as the Art and Culture Club that
each year holds several educational or fund-raising events and puts
on an art festival for the whole campus community.

Clearly, viewpoint neutrality simply means that an organization
cannot be denied or given funding based solely on the viewpoint
that they express. Rather, funding should be allocated on the basis
of the programs and services provided to the community.

The spirit of the viewpoint neutrality requirement is to ensure
that activities and organizations are funded consistently and
fairly. This ensures, for example, that the pro-choice group on
campus cannot be denied funding simply because the university or
the student government are more sympathetic to the pro-life
viewpoint. The same goes for a pro-life group at a school with
pro-choice leadership.

Others have suggested that a group can only be funded if the
“opposing viewpoint” is also funded. The idea that you
can’t fund one point of view unless there is another group to
articulate the opposing view is truly absurd. Imagine if a student
government felt compelled to set up and fund a previously
nonexistent Whites Only Student Association because they had
decided to fund an existing Multicultural Student Association.

If both of these groups existed as active student associations,
then funding allocations would be considered for both regardless of
viewpoint. However, to argue that one cannot exist without the
other would not be “neutral.”

The key point to remember is that the term “viewpoint
neutral” pertains to the process by which funds are
distributed, not the outcome. A viewpoint neutral decision process
will yield differing levels of funding to different groups.

Aside from viewpoint neutrality, one might wonder what is meant
by “activities that fulfill the educational mission of the
university.” The question of whether or not there is
educational value in having a program of student activities is
rightly left to the university administration in Southworth. But
once the university has decided that a program of student
activities is beneficial, then the court is quite clear that there
can be few, if any restrictions on the various activities that are
funded.

The system must be viewpoint neutral. Just how broad the
court’s vision of student fee-funded activities is revealed
in the majority opinion:

“The speech the University seeks to encourage in the
program before us is distinguished not by its discernible limits
but by its vast, unexplored bounds. … We make no distinction
between campus activities and off-campus activities. …
Universities possess significant interests in encouraging students
to take advantage of the social, civic, cultural and religious
opportunities available in the surrounding communities and
throughout the country.

“If the rule of viewpoint neutrality is respected, our
holding affords the University latitude to adjust its
extracurricular student speech program to accommodate these
advances and opportunities.”

Long before the Southworth decision, the University of
California system recognized that a wide range of student
activities is central to the UC’s educational mission by
establishing a funded student activities program. This includes a
broad array of activities such as those that “provide
opportunities for educational benefits and personal and social
enrichment, or to stimulate on-campus discussion and debate on a
variety of issues” (UC Office of the President, Guidelines
for Funding Registered Campus Organizations).

You might look at this definition and think that it’s very
broad ““ it is. The definition is intentionally open, thereby
allowing the open marketplace of ideas to flourish and take shape
through the activities of student groups on any particular
campus.

This definition allows a wide range of groups to be funded,
whether that be a campus comedy group, a Muslim student
association, a chess club or a community service club. This could
also include groups like the University of California Students
Association, the United States Students Association and the
Affirmative Action Coalition at UCLA that provide a forum for
students to personally become involved in student governance,
debate civic issues and represent student interest on those issues
before their elected representatives in Sacramento and Washington,
D.C.

The principles of Southworth embrace the diversity of the
student body in every respect by promoting a variety of
student-directed activities and expression.

Although UCLA is not required to revise their fee system under
the Southworth decision, due to the fact that the system in place
is a refundable fee system and not a mandatory one, students and
administrators should embrace the principles of the Southworth
case.

Students at UCLA, led by the Undergraduate Students Association
Council, are taking the initiative to revise their fee policy and
bylaws this quarter to do just that. The UCLA student government
should be congratulated for their foresight to ensure that they put
in place an open, simple and legal fee policy that will provide
UCLA students with the most diverse college experience as
possible.