The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

SAF supports ideas, not ideology

ISOLATED in our college world, the University community as a whole doesn't tend to pay much attention to the everyday workings of the federal government. But today it's definitely worth sitting up and taking notice. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that will affect public universities throughout the country. If the Court makes the wrong decision, it could endanger the future of student-run organizations.

The Court will rule on the constitutionality of requiring students at state-supported universities to pay "activity fees" that are used to support all sorts of student groups on campuses nationwide. In The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth, a law student is suing his university for forcing him to pay a fee that funds, in part, groups with which he disagrees.

If the court decides Southworth has the right not to pay, it threatens to strangle diversity and freedom of expression at this and all other public universities. Without money, our Contracted Independent Organizations -- hundreds of different student groups around Grounds -- will have difficulty continuing to function.

Scott Southworth doesn't want to fund liberal organizations -- such as Amnesty International and the Campus Women's Center -- at the University of Wisconsin, because he disagrees with their purposes and messages. But if every student had the right to withhold funds, the least popular groups could disappear altogether. This amounts to the power of the majority to prohibit speech of the minority. That's not something that our University -- or our nation -- should tolerate.

Withholding funds could mean withholding information and limiting opportunities to gain knowledge. Students who want the voice of their organization heard above others could refuse to fund any other group. In that way, the organizations with the fewest members or least popular opinions -- the opinions we need to hear to contrast majority views -- could be the first to go. Squelching voices of opposition only promotes ignorance at the expense of open, intellectual dialogue.

Our University has an impressive variety of organizations. Ethnic- and race-based groups abound on Grounds, from the Black Student Alliance to the Association of Indonesian Students. Fraternal organizations, a cappella groups, service organizations and religious groups also are CIOs. Certainly, some groups disagree with the opinions expressed by others -- Campus Crusade for Christ and Campus for Choice, for example, may not see eye-to-eye. But does that mean the more popular group should get more money? The University should allow both sides of every story to be told, if there's someone who wants to tell it. Each group is unique, with varied purposes, compositions and messages. Each group has something to tell the University, for students to think about, and to reject or accept the message as is their choice.

The sheer variety of views is one of the most valuable assets of a college campus. Students come to learn, out of the classroom as often as in. Anyone can start a CIO at the University, anyone can share his or her opinion through such a group. But that's only possible because of funding, specifically through the activity fee.

If Southworth or any other student disagrees with a group's message, he has the right to create his own counter-group to express the opposite point of view -- promoting more speech, not less. If he has a belief, he should advocate it by constructively challenging the other position rather than destructively denying funds to that group. The activity fee allows for more dialogue, more productive interaction.

The American Civil Liberties Union justifies a required fee as similar to required taxes. Taxpayers are allowed to "object to the use of a municipal park for a controversial political rally ... but they many not express their displeasure by withholding funds," ("Court to Review Student's Objection to Activity Fees," The Washington Post, Nov. 7). Neither should students be permitted to deny funds to student organizations.

In the same article, the University of Wisconsin also defends requiring the fee for this reason: Students can't withhold "tuition that results in courses being taught with whose content they disapprove." Just as there are controversial groups, there are controversial classes at the University -- classes that teach evolution or feminism or have extremely liberal or conservative professors for example. Students pay for all classes, not just the ones they enroll in, thus they also should pay for all organizations, not just the ones they like best.

The University already has a policy, stated in Student Rights and Responsibilities, that "Students may apply for a partial refund of their student activity fee if they do not wish to support the particular speech activities of some student organizations receiving these funds." This statement hopefully should protect our CIOs if the Supreme Court makes the wrong decision after hearing arguments today.

But although the University grants you the right not to pay, you shouldn't withhold your funds. It's a mere $39 a year -- but perhaps 39 of the most valuable dollars you could spend at the University. It's money for free speech, free expression, freedom to learn something new or see something in a fresh way. It's the reason we have so many groups, so many opportunities at our fingertips. Don't let the Supreme Court throw that away.

(Jennifer Schaum is a Cavalier Daily associate editor.)

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt