Contact Us

Advertising

Comics

Crossword

The Arizona Daily Wildcat Online

Catcalls

Policebeat

Search

Archives

News Sports Opinions Arts Classifieds

Thursday February 1, 2001

Basketball site
Pearl Jam

 

Police Beat
Catcalls

 

Alum site

AZ Student Media

KAMP Radio & TV

 

U. Wisconsin student government will be brought to justice

Headline Photo

By Tom McDermott

In March, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in a case which could have had profound effects on the manner by which student governments allocate funds to campus organizations.

In Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin vs. Southworth, the Court held that a public university may charge students mandatory fees to fund political and ideological student organizations if the allocation of the funds is administered with a neutral viewpoint.

Scott Southworth, a devout Christian, and other students had filed suit against the university and won in the lower courts. The $330 mandatory fee, charged separately from tuition, was being used to fund organizations Southworth and the others found highly objectionable. These included the Lambda League and the International Socialist Organization. He argued his forced funding of these groups amounted to a violation of his First Amendment rights.

The Court disagreed, holding that the university's mandatory fee scheme passed constitutional muster. However, it was not a complete victory for the hard-core campus Left, which had labeled Southworth a "dangerous extremist." The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether Wisconsin's student government was applying a neutral-viewpoint standard.

In December, Southworth was vindicated. The district judge found that Wisconsin failed to meet the standards set by the Supreme Court. What the Supreme Court did was apply to public universities the long-standing First Amendment doctrine of viewpoint neutrality for the allocation of public funds and resources for the promotion of speech.

So why did the district court find in Southworth's favor? Because Wisconsin blatantly discriminated against conservative, apolitical and even moderately liberal student groups.

As one of the attorneys put it, the funds were little more than a "tithe to the church of the politically correct."

There was an apparent two-tiered funding structure. Most of the university's 600-plus organizations were on the bottom tier and received less than $1,000 per year in student government funds. The top tier organizations received well in excess of $5,000 each year.

The list of the top tier organizations indicates the complete disregard for viewpoint neutrality. The 2000-2001 funding of clubs was ordered with MeCHA at the top, with $33,885; Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Transgender Campus Center at $34,900; UW Greens at $23,700; and Sex Out Loud at $29,300.

No conservative organizations are represented in this tier, and few if any apolitical organizations seem to have made the cut.

This isn't about minor disparities in the budgets of the College Democrats and the College Republicans. It's about a complete monopolization of student government funds to advocate the accepted left wing orthodoxy.

And the problem isn't confined to Wisconsin, although as former home of the Queen of Political Correctness Donna Shalala, it is probably one of the worst offenders.

You might ask why conservatives don't just quit complaining and get themselves elected to student government.

And I'd say they are two steps ahead of you. Conservatives and moderates fed up with strong arm tactics are doing just that. Not only that, but now the courts appear to be recognizing the struggle for free speech for students and academic freedom for professors.

Scott Southworth stormed the ivory tower, and he inspired others to do the same. The Berlin Wall of politically correct campus orthodoxy, which was nearly impregnable in the early 1990s, is beginning to crumble under its own weight.

The courts will no longer allow student government representatives to treat our money as their own piggy bank for the advancement of their radical political agenda. As they should, they will be subject to the same scrutiny as any other elected official.

Finally, accountability has come to student government.