Court decision upholds use of fees to fund student groups
Plaintiffs said university policy violated First Amendment rights
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.
advertise
contact us
top of page
Comments
Post a comment