Is freedom worth $5.69?

Student fees provide valuable campus service

When University students glance at their tuition bills, they notice a charge for the Michigan Student Assembly. While the $5.69 semesterly fee pales in comparison to the rest of the bill, an important reason supports the separate charge. It represents the student body's ability to elect student representatives to allocate funding to student groups. The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case Tuesday challenging the legality of such fees and potentially threatening this crucial element of a diverse learning experience. Activity fees are fair, and more importantly, they provide students with different and often entertaining learning opportunities, which are a critical part of the academic experience.

In Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Scott Southworth, three Wisconsin students sued the university because they didn't want their mandatory activity fees to support political and ideological organizations. Their claim completely ignores a university's core mission - education. And if their logic were applied to every aspect of the University, tuition could not support teaching and research.

Every cent of tuition supports ideological causes, either directly or indirectly. That defines academia and sets it apart from all other professions. Every research experiment has a conclusion, and every lesson has a point. Some students who pay tuition may disagree with certain points and conclusions. But does that entitle them to a pro-rated refund on tuition?

No. Divergent views drive academia. If every student agreed with all opinions set forth within the University, nobody would learn much. Disagreements fuel education. Student activity fees are vital to continuing debates outside the classroom.

The plaintiffs cited high court rulings that allow union members to request refunds for any portion of their dues used for political contributions. They claim mandatory student activity fees are another form of compelled speech, thus violating their First Amendment rights. Student fees, however, differ from union dues because they support more than one ideology. If you disagree with a group that receives University funding, you can form your own group to espouse your views.

"Nobody would identify a student at a university with all the diverse views being espoused," said law Prof. Sheldon Nahmod, of the Chicago-Kent College of Law.

The true violation of the First Amendment would occur if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. If the courts barred universities from funding ideological and political organizations, they would stifle the voices of thousands of students.

At the University of Michigan, the $5.69 fee translated into funding for more than 218 student groups this semester, ranging from the College Democrats to the intervarsity Christian fellowship to Students for Life. If at least five students are interested in forming a group, they can apply for MSA funding.

Furthermore, student activity fees are fair because MSA's funding process is democratic. While the vast majority of the student body does not vote in MSA elections, it's designed as a representative democracy. Members of MSA elected to represent the University's schools and colleges make the final appropriations decisions.

If the Supreme Court upholds the 7th Circuit Appellate Court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs, the University of Michigan would have a few funding options - none of which match the current MSA system.

In the worst-case scenario, the University could eliminate the student activity fee and appropriate money to all student groups through the University's general fund. Even if students were involved in this process, we'd be wary of it. The beauty of the current funding system is it has little to do with administrators. Students are more qualified to make funding decisions than University bureaucrats.

The University also could give the students the option not to pay their activities fee. This is illogical. Most students are on tight budgets, so any tuition decrease would look tempting. Who wouldn't want a reduction in their tuition payments? This would result in a dramatic funding decrease for student groups.

"Isn't a university an open forum for competing ideas?" asked Prof. Davison Douglas, director of the College of William and Mary's Institute of Bill of Rights Law. A ban on mandatory activity funding would forever damage that open forum. The student activities fee is the most just way to fund a diverse range of student activities, because it allows a government of elected student representatives to maximize the amount of intellectual debate on campus.

11-11-99