A year ago, student groups such as Justice For All, College Democrats and College Republicans didn’t receive a share of the student incidental fee money that goes to support a variety of student programs on campus.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last March in support of the incidental fee system, there was a possibility that no other student group would get any money either.
However, the unanimous decision handed down by the Court in Southworth vs. the University of Wisconsin upheld the fee system, quelling worries that universities around the country would have to rethink the way they finance their student programs.
It has also done something else — even though this year’s budget process will begin later this month, nobody is exactly sure how the Southworth case will impact the procedure. Questions abound about who will get fee money, how much more students will pay and how it will change the entire process.
The fee system as a whole had been questioned since the 1995-96 school year, when University of Wisconsin students Scott Southworth, Amy Schoepke and Keith Bannach objected to their money going toward student groups with views opposed to theirs.
Before the decision, the University’s system barred student organizations that endorsed political or religious views from receiving money through the incidental fee.
Wisconsin’s incidental fee system, however, was already more liberal than the University’s. No distinction was made between educational and political student groups, allowing College Democrats, College Republicans and WISPIRG — Wisconsin’s version of OSPIRG — to receive funds for political purposes.
But the decision should bring the University on par with Wisconsin’s more liberal system this winter, when the ASUO begins the process of financing student athletic tickets, EMU programs and a number of student groups.
This will include the power, and possibly the obligation, to administer funding to student organizations with controversial views.
Graduate English student Scott Austin said Southworth opened up the campus forum so that groups with differing views, but similar programs, would be considered equals when it comes to funding.
With such a large opportunity on the horizon as the ASUO gears up for the impending budget process, there are more questions than answers floating around.
ASUO President Jay Breslow said that until the Clark Document, which contains incidental fee guidelines for the University, is updated in November, it is unclear what groups will be able to receive funding and how the process will work.
Even so, some student organizations are still planning to try.
Austin said that Justice for All, an anti-abortion student group that supports the use of graphic material, will request funding during this year’s budgeting process. The funding will go in part to sponsor the Genocide Awareness Project, which JFA brought to campus last year.
The issue, he said, is not whether JFA will receive funding, but how much funding it will get.
Generally, first-year student programs are given $300 for their yearly budget.
But Students for Choice, an abortion rights organization on campus, has received funding through the incidental fee for years. JFA is essentially equal to SFC, Austin said, so there is a chance it may receive full funding.
The amount of funding for various groups is not the only unresolved issue surrounding this year’s budget process. Austin foresees other complications when it comes to fee distribution. For example, the ability of student groups to request funds through ballot measures, which they could do in years past, may be put in jeopardy.
He said the ballot measure system allows groups that are popular to get more money than those that aren’t. If that were to happen, equal groups would not receive equal funding, which he said goes against the Southworth decision.
And finally, there is the question of how the decision will impact the incidental fee itself.
University General Counsel Melinda Grier said she doesn’t believe the decision will result in students paying more to the fee, because students will continue to look at the programs and decide which ones they want to fund.
“There are always more requests than there are money for,” she said. “We’ve always taken the view that any group can apply for funds, and then we look at what the activities are.”
Despite the overwhelming presence of questions, groups that wish to have funding for the next school year must begin thinking soon about their choices.
Already some groups are contemplating future action.
Chris Pratt of the College Democrats said that the group intends to ask for funding when the opportunity arises.
In contrast, the College Republicans have decided as a group not to ask for funding, Austin said.
“I don’t think it’s right for anyone to pay for something they don’t agree with,” he said.
The Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship is steering clear of the incidental fee issue for the time being.
“I don’t think we’re at a place where we’re able to deal with any adversarial issues that may be out there,” said Jack Hammond, director of Chi Alpha. He added that he didn’t think the fellowship would ask for funding “until our students have a stronger conviction for their fees going to Chi Alpha.”