New fee policy stifles student activism

Our university’s incredible array of extracurricular
student activities provide nearly unlimited opportunities for
students to extend their educations beyond the classroom. These
activities, funded by student fees, also promote the
university’s three-pronged mission of teaching, service and
research.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have reaffirmed the
educational constitutionality of the student-directed use of
mandatory student fees in American universities, saying they
promote a marketplace of ideas.

Unfortunately, important court decisions on student organization
funding have been misrepresented and misinterpreted by many
University of California administrators, resulting in significant
confusion on the campuses.

The most serious misinterpretation by the UC is regarding the
Supreme Court’s ruling in Board of Regents of the University
of Wisconsin System v. Southworth in March 2000.

The Southworth case was originally brought by a student at the
University of Wisconsin who felt his First Amendment rights were
violated when he had to pay a mandatory activities fee to fund
student organizations with whose activities he disagreed.

The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed, saying
“extracurricular speech” at American universities
““ even speech one may disagree with ““ is a critical
part of the educational experience and must be protected. The
decision once again affirmed the constitutionality of the mandatory
student fees.

The court decision suggests if a university allows a mandatory
fee system to fund student activities, it must allow for a very
broad range of activities ““ including student advocacy
““ to be funded. In addition, all funds must be allocated
without regard to a particular organization’s viewpoints.

This landmark case prompted universities all over the country to
revise their funding policies for campus groups. Here, the UC
Office of the President is responsible for revising the funding
guidelines that affect the way student groups are funded.

Unfortunately, the UCOP has seriously misinterpreted the case.
In its new fee guidelines, the Southworth case is used to limit the
speech of student government and cut referenda ““ a major
source of student group funding. This was a case that was intended
to promote on-campus participation, not stifle it.

But UCOP’s new fee policy draft places restrictions on
student government activities that are not in the spirit of the
Supreme Court’s Southworth ruling and the university’s
educational mission. The university now claims student government
activities should be more restricted than the activities of student
organizations. The administration argues the student government is
“an official unit” of the university and falls under a
state law that says public universities can only lobby on higher
education issues. By defining the student government as an official
unit, the university is attempting to tie the hands of student
government behind its back.

This is wrong for three reasons:

1. The Supreme Court’s Southworth ruling makes it clear
that student activity funds are not government dollars and are not
subject to the same restrictions as government dollars. Quoting the
decision, “In the instant case, the speech is not that of the
University or its agents. It is not, furthermore, speech by an
instructor or a professor in the academic context, where principles
applicable to government speech would have to be considered.”
This ruling applies to student groups and should apply to student
governments.

2. The university has previously stated student government
speech is not the speech of the university. In section 84 of the
current fee policy, it states, “Positions on issues taken by
student governments shall not be represented as or deemed to be
official positions of the University. … Any expenditures in
support of such positions, funded by voluntary student fees, must
avoid any implication that the positions taken are sponsored,
endorsed, or favored by the University.”

3. Apart from the technical status given to student governments,
they are not significantly different from registered campus
organizations concerning their missions and funding. Student
governments ““ which are funded by a mandatory fee ““
were created to allow students to apply what they learn in the
classroom to further the educational mission of the university.

In addition to defining student governments in a way that
restricts their political options, the university is proposing to
eliminate the option of referenda for specific registered campus
organizations. Once the new guidelines go into effect, many of the
retention programs and student outreach efforts that are currently
funded by referenda could be cut. With current state budget cuts
expected to slash state-funded outreach programs, we can’t
allow the administration to take away referenda.

But, after reviewing the Southworth decision, the university has
changed the referendum mechanism to limit its use.

But according to the UC Systemwide Student Fee Policy Revision,
a number of legal experts have offered the opinion that a
referendum is a perfectly legal way “to set allocation levels
for student organizations, so long as the following conditions are
met:

1. Referenda or any other expression of student support may not
be used to determine a student organization’s overall funding
eligibility.

2. Referenda may be used to determine a certain allocation level
for a Registered Student Organization already deemed eligible by
the appointed student government or administrative committee
responsible for such decisions.

3. Referenda may not be the only means available to a Registered
Student Organization for determining its allocation level.

4. Referenda may not be a requirement for determining a
Registered Student Organization’s allocation
level.”

It is clear the university is asking students to make
concessions that will stifle student activism. Student governments
must be allowed to work on the issues that affect their students,
communities, states and nation. Registered organizations must be
given the freedom to adequately fund their activities. We will not
be swayed. We will not settle for anything less.

Kaczmarek is the Undergraduate Students Association
Council’s external vice president.