Understanding Southworth

Understanding Southworth
Funding decisions must be neutral
by Dave Rosenfeld

     The unanimous Supreme Court decision Southworth vs. The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, issued in March 2000, was a monumental victory for student free speech and student rights. The case addressed the constitutionality of mandatory student fees, and the Court ruled in a 9 to 0 judgment that promoting the open marketplace of ideas through mandatory student fees at American universities is an integral part of the college education experience.
     The decision upholds the role of mandatory student fees as both appropriate and constitutional to fund a broad range of student activities that further the university’s educational mission. The Court further stipulated that the funds must be allocated without regard to a particular organization’s viewpoint—this has been deemed “viewpoint neutrality.”
     Some confusion has resulted over the Court’s use of the term viewpoint neutrality. One misinterpretation of “viewpoint neutral allocation of funds” is that every student organization that asks for money gets the same level of funding. This isn’t the case—take an example. No one would ever suggest the Bring Back Disco Club, which meets once a week to listen to and reminisce about 1970s disco music, should get the same amount of money as a Campus Women’s Resource Center that holds several fund-raising and educational events each semester.
     Viewpoint neutrality simply means that a university can’t give or refuse funding to organizations based solely upon the viewpoint that they express. Support depends upon the programs and services a group provides to the community. The spirit of the viewpoint neutrality requirement is to ensure that activities and organizations get consistent and fair funding. This guarantees that a pro-life group on campus could receive support regardless of the university or the Student Government’s pro-choice viewpoint.
     Some suggest that a group can only get funds if the opposing viewpoint also is funded. The idea that you can’t fund one point of view unless there’s another group to articulate the opposing view is truly absurd. Imagine if Student Government felt compelled to set up and subsidize a previously nonexistent Whites Only Student Association because it was giving money to an existing Multicultural Student Association. If both of these groups existed as active student associations, then clearly funding allocation would be considered for both regardless of viewpoint. However, to argue that once cannot exist without the other wouldn’t be neutral.
     The key point to remember is that viewpoint neutral pertains to the process by which funds are distributed, not the outcome. This funding process will yield differing levels of support to different groups.
     You might also wonder what is meant by “activities that fulfill the education mission of the university.” The Court ruled that the question of whether or not there’s educational value in having a program of student activities is left to the university administration. However, once the university decides that a program of student activities is beneficial, and then the Court is quite clear that there are few, if any, restrictions placed on the funded activities. The system must be viewpoint neutral. Just how broad the Courts’ vision of student-fee funded activities is revealed in the majority opinion:

“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…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. Universities, like all of society, are finding that traditional concepts of territorial boundaries are difficult to insist upon in an age marked by revolutionary changes in communications, information transfer, and the means of discourse. 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.”
To view the Court’s entire opinion, visit http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1189.Z0.html.

     The most important element that student leaders and administrators should take from the Southworth decision is complete confidence in their ability to use student fees for a variety of activities, including those that are political or controversial. When faced with funding decisions, administrators and Student Governments are now free to ask the question, “Will this provide significant learning opportunities for the students at this school and help fulfill the university’s mission?” Instead of simply, “Are we allowed to do this?”
     But, how do student leaders and administrators ensure that their funding guidelines are viewpoint neutral? Most importantly, they should have confidence in their existing fee policies. However, it makes sense to have a look at what’s on the books, just to be on the safe side. Check out The Center for Campus Free Speech’s viewpoint neutral criteria for Student Governments to use when reviewing their own funding criteria (visit www.CAMPUSSPEECH.org for a downloadable copy).
     In conclusion, the Southworth decision reinforces what most student leaders and universities already knew: that mandatory student fees are the best vehicle for providing an extra-curricular educational experience that creates a rich learning environment and provides students with the opportunity to apply their studies to the real world.

Dave Rosenfeld, a Rutgers University grad with a B.A. in political science, is the campus programs director for the California Student Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG). He works with student leaders at seven University of California campuses to develop local, statewide, and national advocacy and service projects on issues ranging from environmental protection to higher-education funding. Contact Rosenfeld at davrose@earthlink.net or (213) 251-3680.

A Guide for SGs
The Center for Campus Free Speech, established in 1997, tries to "protect the marketplace of ideas created by student fees." The advisory board consists of academics and student leaders from across the country, including Ali Fischer of the United States Student Association, Gerald Pomper of the Eagleton Institute of Politics, and David Vladeck, litigation director for Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog group.
The Center’s web page offers resources for student leaders and administrators, including background and updates on court and legislative decisions across the country, policy analysis, and more. Contact the Center’s staff at center@campusspeech.org or (202) 546-5074.