Supreme Court supports fees, fund equality

Dang is vice president external of the Graduate Student
Association. Burch is chair of the University of California
Students Association.

By Alain Dang and Kenny Burch

On March 22, college campuses across the nation will mark the
second anniversary of the unanimous Supreme Court decision in
University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth. The decision serves
as a victory for campus free speech and expressive student
activities by claiming that an active marketplace of ideas (through
mandatory student fees) is an integral part of the college
educational experience.

The two-year-old decision makes two key conclusions. First, the
decision upholds the role of mandatory student fees as both
appropriate and constitutional to fund a broad range of student
activities that offer a competition of ideas and furthers the
university’s educational mission.

Second, the Supreme Court stipulated that a constitutional
funding process must make allocations without consideration of a
particular organization’s viewpoint, which has been deemed
“viewpoint neutrality.”

The court reaffirms that student activities have significant
educational value. A wide variety of cultural, political, religious
and ethnic activity comes from the campus community, including
cultural festivals, service events, musical performances and
political rallies. Once the university has decided that a program
of student activities is beneficial, the court is quite clear that
there can be few, if any, restrictions on the various activities
that are funded.

Justice Kennedy recognizes the “vast, unexplored
bounds” open to student activities and language from the
Court’s opinion reveals just how broad the program of student
activities funding should be:

“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…. The University may well
determine that it’s mission is well served if students have
the means to engage in dynamic discussions of philosophical,
religious, scientific, social and political subjects outside the
lecture hall”¦. 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.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has given campuses a green light to
cultivate an exciting range of educational activities, both on and
off campus, through student fee funding. In fact, the Court wrote,
“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.”

Some confusion has resulted over the court’s use of the
term “viewpoint neutrality.” The viewpoint neutrality
requirement is to ensure that activities and organizations are
funded through a consistent process accessible to all
organizations. 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.

The key point to remember is that the phrase “viewpoint
neutrality” 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.

Now, as we mark the second anniversary of the Southworth
decision, the UC system is working to revise our systemwide student
fee policies. The University of California Student Association has
submitted a revised policy that takes full advantage of the Supreme
Court’s ruling and revolves around three basic principles for
funding student groups and activities: 1) Allows funding of all
activities that are consistent with the University’s
educational mission; 2) Maintains the historical role of student
governments in allocating fee funds; 3) Retains the viewpoint
neutral system of allocating funds, with the understanding that no
funding decision can be based upon the views of the group; funding
may not be solely contingent upon demonstrating majority support,
and funding levels may be significantly different for different
groups, but differences cannot be because of the views expressed by
any of the groups.

These principles have been deemed legal and consistent with
Southworth by the Legislative Counsel of California and endorsed by
a variety of state legislators. These principles will allow full
student participation in the vast “marketplace of
ideas” that the Supreme Court upholds and protects. It is
critical that the University of California Office of the President
accepts these principles and keeps students involved in every step
of the revision process.

If you are interested in finding out more information about this
issue, contact your local student government or go to
www.ucsa.org.