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.