• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous ruling allowing for the use of mandatory fees to fund student organizations at public universities will ensure that college campuses continue to be dynamic havens for free speech and ideological diversity.

On March 22, the justices announced their decision on a lawsuit filed by Scott Southworth, a law student at the University of Wisconsin, at Madison, who sued his school for forcing him to pay fees that fund student groups espousing ideologies contrary to his own. Southworth and his right-wing supporters argued that such a requirement infringed on his First Amendment right "not to speak," and not to contribute to the dissemination of speech which he finds disagreeable.

But in a stunning 9-0 reversal of decisions by a federal district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the high court ruled that such fees and the organizations they fund promote an open exchange of ideas consistent with the educational mission of public universities. As long as groups are funded on a politically neutral basis - which means that money is allocated without regard for a program's ideological content - the fees do not impede on any individual's First Amendment rights. The UC system, as well as the University of Wisconsin, already requires this neutrality.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court's opinion, "The university may determine that its mission is well served if students have the means to engage in dynamic discussions of philosophical, religious, scientific, social and political subjects in their extracurricular campus life outside the lecture hall."

Coming from the typically conservative Rehnquist court, the decision clearly rebuffs those who seek to censor speech that doesn't toe their ideological line. This includes one of Southworth's chief supporters, the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group whose core mission is to "de-fund the left."

An organization's ability to exercise its First Amendment rights is often directly proportional to its access to the financial resources necessary to express opinions in a public forum. Without a system of mandatory student fees, many viewpoints would be effectively silenced. As the justices surely recognized, this is anathema to the purpose of institutions of higher education.

And by requiring that groups are funded on an ideologically neutral basis, public universities expose their students to popular and unpopular viewpoints all across the political spectrum. As the Los Angeles Times reported in November, mandatory fees at the University of Wisconsin have been used to fund speeches by National Organization for Women president Patricia Ireland, as well as former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed.

The court's ruling protects students from being silenced by groups like the Alliance Defense Fund. Organizations ranging from the International Socialist Organization to the Future Financial Gurus of America can continue to flourish on college campuses.

The decision extends from the University of Wisconsin to protect funding for student groups at schools across the country, including campuses of the University of California. UC guidelines stipulate that if a student objects to any program funded by mandatory fees, that person can apply for a refund for his or her share of the activity's budget. The court suggested the use of such guidelines is favorable, but declined to make them constitutional requirements.

Here at UCLA, mandatory fees are allocated through the Undergraduate Students Association Council to student advocacy groups and other campus organizations. The fees are used to fund cultural and political programs expressing a diverse array of ideologies and ideas.

By validating the positive educational purpose of such fees, the Supreme Court affirmed the ability of all public university students to exercise their First Amendment rights.