Attorney: Revised student-fee system still violates First Amendment

By The Associated Press

02.27.01

Printer-friendly page

MADISON, Wis. — The University of Wisconsin's proposal to change the way it distributes student fees does not comply with a federal court ruling that said student government officials have too much discretion in giving out the money, an attorney said yesterday.

Jordan Lorence, who represented a group of students that challenged the fee system, said the revisions proposed by the university still allow students to "deny funding to any applicant with a disfavored viewpoint simply by declaring that the applicant does not offer a service."

The U.S. Supreme Court approved the fees last March but sent the case back to the lower court to examine the distribution method.

U.S. District Judge John C. Shabaz then found the university gave student government officials too much discretion in deciding who receives the fees and struck down the system.

The university filed proposed changes earlier this month under an order from Shabaz to devise a constitutional system to collect and distribute the fees.

Lorence then filed a response yesterday to the university's claim that it had complied with the court's ruling.

The university's 13 campuses collect a portion of student fees to fund campus organizations. The student government then decides who gets the money and how much, though each campus chancellor has the authority to veto decisions.

To comply with Shabaz's ruling, the university's student governments have developed criteria for giving money to student groups and avoiding conflicts of interest. Each campus also will have an appeals process and be required to provide, when requested, a written statement giving reasons why an applicant was denied funding. The changes follow those made at University of Wisconsin-Madison by its student government, the Associated Students of Madison.

The Madison campus's bylaws require that a student group provide a "specific and identifiable educational benefit and service to the students of the university."

Lorence says the new process still violates the First Amendment because it gives student governments too much leeway in deciding which groups get money.

The students who challenged the fee-distribution system in court argued the university should either establish minimum standards under which all qualifying groups can receive funds or give students an option to withhold their money from groups they find objectionable.

"What we want is basically a situation where the student government cannot deny people once they've met a set of neutral, objective criteria," Lorence said.

But Peter Anderson, the assistant attorney general who argued the case for the university, says the plaintiffs have never come forward with suggestions for workable guidelines.

The university must file its response to Lorence by March 5. Shabaz is to issue his ruling sometime after that date.