Funding threat

U.S. Supreme Court to decide on student fees

For years college campuses have provided open forums for various and often conflicting political views. Most students find that exposure to a wide array of voices - expressed through student organizations - tends to enhance their undergraduate experiences. But three law students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison disagree. In April, 1996, Scott Southworth, along with two other fellow law students, filed a suit against the school's board of regents in which they alleged that the use of their student government fees to fund student groups violated their First Amendment rights. The three students compiled a list of 18 organizations that they claimed conflicted with their own self-proclaimed conservative Christian ideologies. Since then, two separate federal courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, prompting the board of regents to refund the students' fees. The case, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth, will be heard by the Supreme Court next fall.

Given the fact that only $15 of the $166 student fees at Wisconsin per semester are actually allocated to fund student groups (the rest of the money goes to student services such free bus passes for all students), it seems apparent that the students' real motivations are not financial but political - precisely the kind of partisan grandstanding that their suit challenges in the first place. Among the organizations on Southworth's hit-list are the National Organization of Women, a gay rights activism group and an environmental lobbying group whom he described as "the scary kind of environmentalists." While it may be difficult to understand why Southworth feels himself threatened by this "scary" lobbying group, he has offered his own righteous justification for his attack on student groups: "It is the only thing we have to protect those who are not in power." The use of such rhetoric to defend attempts to silence campus political organizations is offensive to those who are fighting sincere battles for political and social equality.

Rather than trying to sabotage the efforts of other students to make their voices heard, Southworth might direct his energies into using the very First Amendment right he claims has been violated by forming his own group to provide an opposition to those with whom he disagrees. Nobody is claiming that Southworth and his co-plaintiffs don't have a right to their own opinions - by funding student groups, the University of Wisconsin is in fact encouraging political discourse among its students - but by attempting to hinder the efforts of students to form organizations (which is their First Amendment right), they are in fact trying to inhibit the free exchange of ideas that makes college campuses such vibrant features of our national political life.

It might be objected that students may form whatever groups they like, but not with other students' money. The fact is that student government coffers are the ideal financial resource for student organizations. As long as there is no discrimination in the allocation process itself, the University of Wisconsin student government is doing its entire campus a service by allowing students to express their beliefs. If these funds were removed, only the political causes that could raise enough money would be able to exist. Then, perhaps, Southworth would find out who "those who are not in power" really are; it would seem that in such a scenario, environmental groups would cease to be as "scary" as Southworth thinks they are. By attempting to cut off the student government funding for these organizations, Southworth is not protecting but suppressing First Amendment rights. It would benefit the University of Wisconsin and college campuses nationwide if Scott Southworth and his friends would wait until they graduate to start playing lawyer.

04-09-99