Supporting What We Don’t Believe

– November 1999    

Freedom of speech is not absolute, as Supreme Court decisions have told us. Yet what rights do we have about seeing our funds being used as we want them?

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that will affect colleges and universities across the nation, including Columbia.

In 1996, a student at the University of Wisconsin sued to prevent his student activities fee from being used to support groups holding view with which he disagreed.

The student has argued that the activities fee is a violation of freedom of speech (or freedom to not speak) and that the University of Wisconsin cannot compel him to pay the fee. The implications of this case far outweigh the seemingly minor issue involved, as this case is one in a recent chain of Supreme Court decisions regarding the first amendment and affecting apparently unrelated issues such as campaign financing.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. Over the course of American history, the right has been restricted to prevent such things as treasonous speech, speech inciting violence (such as calling for the commission of crimes), and the act of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. This is not to equate the issue of student fees with such speech, but merely to state that there are limitations.

The case is further complicated by three other course decisions. One, in 1995, required schools to subsidize all viewpoints if they wished to create a “public forum,” meaning in essence that the school had to allow all types of student groups. Two other decisions restricted unions and bar associations from using mandatory dues for political advocacy.

The issue arising from the first decision is that schools are required to allow groups across the political spectrum to exist, including the groups that the student disagreed with. In essence, because the school was required to support all groups, it is hard to make a case the money remitted by students must only go to groups they support. Under that viewpoint, if the vast majority of a school were liberal, there would be a tremendous disparity in funding for groups liberal and non-liberal. A disparity at odds with the Supreme Court’s evident desire to see all viewpoints expressed, if not necessarily equally, surely at a minimum level.

The other decisions pose a further problem. The activities fee is required; disinterest in participation is not a valid reason for note paying the fee. And the fees go to groups that advocate various political opinions. However, there is a key difference between school unions and bar associations. College and universities provide a service in educating the student, and all fees paid (including tuition) are considered part of the service. Unions and bar associations also provide a service, but one fundamentally different from education. They seek to advance the interests of their members, and they are usually limited to advocacy.

Education is an issue of great importance to Americans. We accept numerous restrictions and requirements on students for the perceived goal as valid members of society. And it is that junior status that appears to be relevant here. Members of law associations and unions are full participants in society, and we do not find it crucially important that they be exposed to a variety of viewpoints. For students of all ages, however, we are more concerned with learning, knowledge, and different ways of thinking. And to that end, we seek to provide as broad an experience as possible.

There is a further comparison. We pay taxes to the government every year, taxes that are used for a variety of items with which some people surely disagree.

Yet one can hardly call up the Pentagon and demand that the government not buy a new bomber since this person is opposed to war. The reason is the tax money goes into a pool from which the government withdraws what it needs.

True, most colleges do not have significant defense budgets nor do they protect their students in the same manner as the government. But the principle remains the same. Student activity money goes into a general pool which is dispersed without regard to individual contributions. That pool must be used to support all viewpoints, and that pool must support the organization to which the student is actually contributing. The groups do receive their money from the pool, but the student is, at best, contributing indirectly, in the same manner as taxes are used.

Freedom of speech is a cherished right of all Americans. But we all have that right, and a public institution cannot discriminate between one viewpoint or another. As part of attending, voluntarily, an educational institution, we are required to pay certain fees.

We may not agree with the uses of fees, but when it comes down to brass tacks, all fees fall under the general rubric of tuition. And no one would deny the school to use its money as it sees fit, which is what it is doing when it uses the activities fee to support student groups.

Reprinted with permission from Columbia Daily Spectator
by Joel Rosner