News

The Right to Remain Silent

If the Supreme Court slaughters the student fee cash cow when ruling on a case from the University of Wisconsin, student groups nationwide may find themselves begging for dimes.

The First Amendment not only grants U.S. citizens the right to express their opinions in public. It also provides the right not to be forced into agreeing with the view of one particular group or government. This second function of free speech not only allows one to speak freely, but also the freedom to remain silent.

Three University of Wisconsin at Madison (UW) students made national headlines recently after they won a suit in federal court claiming their right to remain silent had been infringed upon by the university's funding of campus organizations with mandatory student fees.

Scott Southworth, Amy Schoepke and Keith Bannach filed their suit against to object paying the $331.50 of student fees for the 1995-96 school year. The three conservative students felt their rights had been infringed upon because part of their money was used to fund the Wisconsin Public Interest Group (WISPIRG); Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Campus Center; UW Greens; and the Campus Women's Center. As the students disagree with many of the groups' values, they felt it was wrong for them to be compelled to pay and help fund these groups. If their case succeeds, the student fee system as it exists now would essentially be illegal.

The three have already won in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, but Wisconsin appealed and took the case to the Supreme Court. Currently, the court is hearing oral arguments from both sides, and is expected to rule on the issue sometime in late spring.

Although the Supreme Court will not make a decision by the end of the year, the effects of its ruling will eventually be felt on campuses across the nation. Student fees amount to more than seven million dollars here at the University of Oregon. Two million of that funds over 90 programs within student government. Groups like OSPIRG; Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; student publications such as the Student Insurgent, Oregon Voice, and the Oregon Commentator; and all the various cultural organizations that take up residence in the EMU are funded by student fee money. Many groups operate almost exclusively on student fee funds, coming to the ASUO for more when they outspend what they get at the start of the year. If the court upholds the previous rulings and Southworth and his cohorts from UW win, many of the aforementioned groups would be left scrambling to bring in additional funding other than student fees.

Wylie Chen, the ASUO Executive, has already been quoted in the Register-Guard as saying a decision in Southworth's favor would hurt the university by making it less diverse. Two senators made their pro-fee opinions clear when they tried to block the senate nomination of Emily Sedgewick because of her anti-fee view. This opinion was not shared with a group of UO and Lane Community College students who filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit with the same complaint Southworth has. Their challenge was rejected by the court earlier this year, but could be reviewed and overturned if the Supreme Court decides in Southworth's favor.

There are three main theories as to how the student fee issue will be resolved by the court. The most drastic decision would be if the court ruled that student fees could not be used at all. This would be the most disruptive- the other two theories would be less so. These involve check lists; one positive, the other negative. Using a positive checklist, a student would mark down which group he or she would like to fund. This would let a liberal student at Oregon fund the LGBTA, OSPIRG, SETA, and a conservative at Oregon could fund the few organizations on campus here he could agree with. Then the student's payment for the student fee would be adjusted accordingly. A negative checklist would allow a student to mark all the groups he did not want his money to go to.

In terms of individual groups though, what every student really pays for each group that gets a piece of the student fee pie isn't that much. A student at Oregon pays just under $500 each year. After one subtracts the cost of student event tickets, drunk bus, and all the other non-political services, he or she is paying from mere cents to just over a dollar for the other groups.

Yet to the supporters of Southworth, and many conservative students it isn't the money which really matters, but the concept of supporting something they don't agree with. Louis Crisostomo served on the Associated Students of Madison (ASM), the UW student government, as a representative for a term and is a strong supporter of a positive checklist system for student fees. "All students should have a choice in how to use their voice," he said from Madison during a phone interview.

Another one of Crisostomo's complaints about the student fee system is how many groups claim they won't be able to exist if their student funding is taken away from them.

"They [groups] make it seem like it is a fight over an oxygen supply, and in a way that shows their lack of confidence in themselves," he said.

As a member of a group which does not need student funding, Crisostomo felt that if other groups could operate on campus without student fee money it would show the students truly are behind that group.

But as a member of the UW student government and a supporter of limiting student fee funding, Crisostomo finds himself in the minority. Adam Klaus, the chair of the student government is a staunch supporter of the current system. This opinion is shared by many others on the government, not much unlike UO's student government.

Also reached in Madison for an interview, Klaus adamantly defended the student fee system.

"We fund groups to encourage debate and make the campus as educational as possible. We have in-class learning, but we need active out-classroom learning; the student fees provide for this," he said. Klaus went onto describe the system as a pool of funding any group could tap that would give them the opportunity to spread their message on campus. By giving every conceivable group on campus a voice, Klaus felt the student fee system ensured a democratic representation of students. Even those whose message would not be popular enough to survive on campus without student fee money could be represented. The fee money would let these less popular groups not have to worry about raising money to spread their message. "People should not have to spend their college life grappling for money," he said.

It will be some time before a final decision is reached in this issue, so both sides will have to wait either expectantly or nervously until the court brings down its ruling.

Already there is speculation that the court will rule in favor of Southworth. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have run articles in which it is reported that justices have been questioning the legitimacy of the PIRGs' role on campuses. "it's just interested in propagating its views," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was quoted as saying in the Nov. 10 issue of the Post, challenging a claim made by Wisconsin's defense that WISPIRG is a student service. Many legal observers feel that PIRGs are almost certainly on their way out, and that most other political groups will be hard pressed to find funding after a ruling.

There seems to be an amazing amount of confusion over this issue. True student services should be paid for by students. Classrooms, computers, books, quality teachers and programs should all be expected to be paid for by the student. The student should be expected to pay for them as it is he who is expecting to reap the minimal benefit of the investment in those tools: a degree. How does an environmental group or a group espousing the rights of homosexuals bring you or me as students one step closer to earning a degree? No matter how many groups "promote awareness," none of them will teach me anything that will bring me closer to earning a degree. The whole issue is nothing more than basic economics; there are luxuries, there are necessities, and you only need to buy the necessities.

Andrew Adams, a sophomore majoring in Journalism, is News Editor for the Oregon Commentator