Former law student renews fight against university's student-fee system
By The Associated Press
11.15.00
Printer-friendly page
MADISON, Wis. — A former University of Wisconsin-Madison law
student has renewed his challenge of the school's student-fee system.
The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in March that any college that doled out student fees in a "viewpoint
neutral" way could collect that money from any student and give it to just
about any group it liked.
Scott Southworth and fellow plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the
university had argued that the school's mandatory student-fee system forced
them to support political and ideological groups with which they disagreed.
But the Supreme Court said in Board of
Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth that
because the university was neutral in how it handed out the money and did not
use the fee program for advocating any particular point of view, it did not
violate the First Amendment.
But the high court sent back to a lower court a portion of the case
dealing with use of student referendums to decide funding. The court said the
method was guided by majority rule and appeared to violate viewpoint
neutrality.
After the Supreme Court ruling, university President Katharine Lyall
banned the rarely used referendums to decide funding.
After the case was sent back, Southworth asked to be allowed to
disregard an earlier agreement with the regents that the university's
fee-distribution system was viewpoint neutral.
U.S. District Judge John Shabaz, who had ruled for Southworth in the
first round of the case, agreed last week that Southworth could challenge the
neutrality of the distribution system.
Through Virginia attorney Jordan Lorence, Southworth now claims that
his constitutional rights to free speech and free association are being
violated because the university's distribution system is not viewpoint neutral.
He argues that students should therefore have the right to opt out of paying
the mandatory fees.
"This is a pleasant surprise that he's so positive on our behalf,"
Lorence said of Shabaz while describing the motion to revisit the case as a
"long shot."
A pretrial hearing is set for Nov. 17 and the trial for Dec. 8.
In arguing that the university's fee system is not viewpoint neutral,
Lorence says he will draw from a line of cases involving parade permits.
Federal courts have ruled that towns and cities cannot arbitrarily grant or
decline permits to use public spaces, Lorence said. The same should be true
with student-fee money, he said.
Peter Anderson, the assistant attorney general handling the case for
the university, said his position is the same as it was previously.
"The system that is used does safeguard students' constitutional
rights and is viewpoint neutral," he said.
Update
Federal judge strikes down university's student-fee system
Court gives University of Wisconsin 60 days to revise distribution procedure, saying current guidelines don't guarantee that funding decisions are viewpoint neutral.
12.11.00
Previous
High court: Public colleges may use student fees to fund controversial groups
Despite unanimous ruling, three justices said they wouldn't have imposed a 'cast-iron' requirement of viewpoint neutrality in the distribution of funds.
03.23.00
Supreme Court upholds mandatory student fees
Court votes unanimously to uphold the University of Wisconsin's student-fee system, which the justices say does not violate any student's free-speech rights.
03.22.00
Justices debate history of free speech on campus in student-fee case
Three University of Wisconsin students ask Supreme Court to let them withhold fee money from other campus groups with which they disagree.
11.10.99
Christian students claim student fees are unconstitutional
Groups urge Supreme Court to side with federal appeals court that ruled students could withhold portions of their fees from groups they oppose.
11.02.99
