The University dodged a $5.5 million bullet on Wednesday.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the incidental fee system — which funds about 90 student programs, the EMU and student athletic tickets at the University — is constitutionally legal.
The case began at the University of Wisconsin during the 1995-96 school year when students Scott Southworth, Amy Schoepke and Keith Bannach objected to paying incidental fees to groups with political views that differed from theirs. They believed funding groups ranging from multicultural groups to WisPIRG — Wisconsin’s version of OSPIRG — was in violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech.
Southworth and his supporters argued that free speech includes the right not to speak. The students’ obligation to pay the fee would be a form of compelled speech and a violation of their right not to speak.
But in the majority decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court said the fee helps universities fulfill a vital mission “to facilitate a wide range of speech.”
Kennedy went on to write, “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 of the lecture hall.
“If the university reaches this conclusion, it is entitled to impose a mandatory fee to sustain an open dialogue to these ends,” Kennedy added.
ASUO President Wylie Chen said the decision is a major validation of student government as a whole, as well as the other programs on campus.
“It reinforces any questions and erases any doubt people have about paying the fee,” he said.
While the decision protects fee allocation, it also opens the door for more liberal spending on campus in the future because other political and religious groups now have a claim to University funds.
The University of Oregon’s fee system is currently stricter than Wisconsin’s in that political groups such as the College Democrats and College Republicans do not get fee funds. Also, OSPIRG does not receive money for political campaigns whereas WisPIRG can use student fees for political purposes as well as environmental and informational campaigns.
In the decision, justices also said funding decisions need to be “viewpoint neutral.” The Programs Finance Committee, which allocates fee money for the student groups on campus such as the Black Student Union and the Multicultural Center, currently gives fee money without regarding a group’s views. The new rule could cause controversy if more political and religious groups come to PFC for student money.
“We’ll be seeing what else we can fund,” Chen said. “Wisconsin shows they can do this, and it’s totally legal.”
Merriah Fairchild, state board chair for OSPIRG and an advocate for the fee while the justices deliberated the Southworth case, said it is a possibility that OSPIRG would look into spending fee money for political campaigns.
“We will look into creating the most social change possible [and look for] ways to be more effective,” she said.
One final part of policy might have to change at the University, however. The justices ruled that it is unconstitutional for students to vote on whether to fund a group. Students made that choice last year when a majority voted to fund OSPIRG for two years.