Viewpoint Neutrality in Student Fee Allocations
VIEWPOINT
NEUTRALITY
SUFAC
Overview of Program
•
What is “Viewpoint Neutrality”?
•
Brief overview of U.S. Supreme Court’s
decision in
Southworth v. Board of
Regents
•
Practical Application of
Southworth
decision
•
Scenarios
Disclaimer
•
Offering general tips and information on
viewpoint neutrality
•
Discussion and information provided
herein is not legal advice
•
Scenarios are hypothetical in nature
•
If a real issue arises, we contact Student
Affairs or legal counsel
Viewpoint Neutrality
•
A neutral point of view is neither
sympathizing with nor disparaging the
subject.
•
The neutrality principle prevents public
universities from discriminating against
student orgs on the basis of the views
they express.
Introduction
•
An understanding of
Southworth v. Board
of Regents
is necessary in order to ensure
that students who are involved in actual
funding decisions comply with
constitutional mandates.
•
(
Southworth v. Board of Regents of the
Univ. of Wis. System,
529 U.S. 217
(2000))
What is the Constitutional Mandate?
•
1
st
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution creates a
constitutional right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of
Association.
•
A public institution must remain “viewpoint neutral” when
making decisions regarding fee allocations to student
groups or organizations.
•
SUFAC which makes recommendations/decisions on fee
allocations must not base its decision on the viewpoints
espoused (expressed) by a group or organization.
History of
Southworth
•
A group of concerned students challenged UW-
Madison’s allocation of segregated fees, claiming that it
was unconstitutional to compel them to financially
support groups that espoused political and ideological
views with which they did not agree.
•
A
c
o
u
r
t
r
u
l
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
f
e
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
a
t
t
h
a
t
t
i
m
e
w
a
s
u
n
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
n
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
v
i
e
w
p
o
i
n
t
-
n
e
u
t
r
a
l
m
a
n
n
e
r
.
•
“Viewpoint neutrality” means that the viewpoint
espoused by the group is not taken into consideration
when making funding decisions.
•
The law suite stated there was no viewpoint-neutrality
which violated the First Amendment right to the freedom
of speech and association.
Southworth
History – Con’t.
•
In a subsequent related case, a court ruled that
Madison’s segregated fee funding system is
constitutional as long as students do not have
“unbridled discretion” in the allocation of student
fees.
Ability to grant preferential treatment to
favored student orgs.
•
Madison’s system avoided
unbridled discretion
because of objective/viewpoint neutral criteria for
evaluating fee requests and a comprehensive
appeals process. The court also found it helpful
that the student government participated in
viewpoint neutrality training.
Supreme Court Finding
•
US Supreme Court unanimously
allowed the collection of mandatory
student activities fees by the
University of Wisconsin System only if
they are spent in a viewpoint-neutral
manner without bias toward programs.
Practical Application of Decisions
•
Decision-makers should not have unbridled
discretion.
•
Have objective rules in place
•
Maintain checks and balances
•
Review and/or appeal process
•
Appeal to the Chancellor
•
Compare grant amounts to determine whether
similar organizations were treated equally and
fairly.
•
NOTE: “Similar” does not mean that the organization
had the same purpose, but rather whether requests
were similar in nature.
Practical Applications – Con’t.
•
DO OPERATE IN A VIEWPOINT NEUTRAL
MANNER BY:
•
Establishing eligibility criteria that is neutral on its face:
•
Must be unrelated to viewpoint/content of group’s
speech.
•
Must not have effect of excluding unpopular minority
viewpoints.
•
Considering use of funding application and attached
budget(s), and apply common sense and fairness to
those documents to determine whether to grant
funding.
Practical Application of Decisions
•
DO NOT consider the viewpoints espoused
by the group when considering fee allocation
•
Jazz club vs. country-western club
•
Men’s rugby team vs. women’s tennis team
•
Democrats vs. Independents
•
A group’s participation in an event that
includes speakers on women’s rights
•
A religious group that holds an event to raise
awareness on abortion
SCENARIO # 1
Joe and Susie have been on the student
financial affairs committee for the past 3 years. They
have watched a highly popular student organization’s
funding levels increase each year. Because of their
experience on the committee, Joe and Susie are well
aware of this organization’s prior requests,
justifications and expenditures. They are both
concerned that the funding is getting excessive merely
because the group keeps seeking new events and
opportunities on and off campus. Joe and Susie want
to “educate” the new committee members so that they
don’t automatically buy into the next funding request,
which they expect will be more than $20,000 above
last year’s budget.
SCENARIO # 1 (Con’t.)
Q: Is this group’s previous budget
information appropriate for the committee to
discuss among themselves during the
funding reviews?
Q: Can a committee member share their
thoughts and opinions about a group’s prior
activities during the budget review?
SCENARIO # 2
Joe and Susie have served on SUFAC
for a few years together. In the past year,
Joe has confided in Susie that he will never
support a particular organization because it
is against his religious beliefs. In the past,
when the organization’s budget request
came up for review, Joe always came up
with a minor, but unrelated reason for voting
to deny the request. The group’s budget is
up for review. Susie isn’t sure what to do.
Q: Should Susie do anything? If so, what?
SCENARIO # 3
A student organization presents a budget request
to the SUFAC in which it proposes 10 events for the
upcoming year with 10 presenters, including $XXX
amount for travel, hotel and cab fare.
In justifying the amount sought, the organization
explains that these 10 events are necessary for the
organization to fulfill its mission and meet its overall
objectives as a group.
Q: What if the SUFAC disagrees with the number of
events?
SCENARIO # 4
A student jazz club has specific requirements
in order to properly maintain its musical instruments.
This year, the club has decided that because it has
been playing more often as a club, additional
tuning/maintenance is required. It now seeks 3
times the amount for maintenance from last year.
Q: If a few SUFAC members disagree with the
increase on the basis that they believe it is unnecessary,
does this create a VPN issue?
SCENARIO # 5
A student organization has had the same advisor
for many years. The group and the advisor are very
close. The advisor has recently revealed to the
organization that he is in serious financial trouble.
A few weeks later, the organization proposed its
funding request to the SUFAC and requests additional
funds in the amount of $2000 as a “gift” for its advisor.
The SUFAC reviews this organization’s request last and
decides that there is just enough money left for such a
one-time gift.
Q: Is this an appropriate use of funds?
SCENARIO # 6
A member of the SUFAC has been
frustrated with the funding approval
process, policy restrictions, and the
ongoing concern about violating VPN.
She talks with other members and is
considering quitting.
Q: What should the member do?
SCENARIO # 7
Susie is an officer for a student organization on
campus. This year, she became a member of the
campus SUFAC. Susie is highly ethical, very fair and
would never make decisions on a matter in an
improper or unfair way (which is why she joined
SUFAC). The student organization has submitted a
request for funding this year, similar to previous
years. Susie, being fair and just, engages in the
funding deliberations for each request, including the
organization to which she is an officer.
Q: Does Susie’s involvement in the deliberations for
funding the organization for which she is an officer create
an issue?
SCENARIO # 8
The SUFAC members have been having
discussions lately about the
Southworth
decision
and constitutional rights of organizations. One of
the SUFAC members has decided that the safest
thing to do is to fund every group an equal amount
every year. That way, there can be no claim that
one group was treated differently than another.
Plus, it makes the process go quickly.
Q: The other members disagree with this
approach but are also concerned about funding
one organization more than another. What should
they do?
SCENARIO # 9
A new club has requested funding this
year. The club only has about 15 members
so far, has not established a strong
presence on campus yet, and likely, any
funding provided will only benefit a very
small amount of the campus population this
year.
Q: If the student committee denies the request
based upon its assumption that the club isn’t
“ready” yet or won’t be successful, does it create
a viewpoint neutrality concern?
SCENARIO # 10
A SUFAC
committee is reviewing a club’s
request for funding. The club has been in operation
for 5 years. Last year, the committee approved a
significant amount for this club because it was
invited to compete in a national tournament. The
club is seeking another significant amount this year
for another tournament in New York.
Upon reviewing this request, the committee
learned that last year, the club only needed 6
members to compete in the conference, but sent its
officers as well because it had the funds left over to
do so.
SCENARIO # 10 (Con’t.)
Q: What factors should the committee
consider in making its decision?
Q: What if the opposite were true and the
club had only spent ½ of its approved budget
from last year, but now wants the full amount
again? Should the committee consider this?
SCENARIO # 11
A new RSO applies for funding. During
deliberations, a committee member decides
to vote not to approve the funding request
because it has no track record and the
committee member doesn’t know what the
organization will really do with the money.
Q: Is this permissible under viewpoint
neutrality?
SCENARIO # 12
A member of the SUFAC knows
members of an RSO that is requesting
funding and tells them not to worry
about funding because he is
sympathetic to their cause.
Q: Is this a potential viewpoint neutrality
violation?
SCENARIO # 13
Out of a total of fifty RSOs applying for
funding, six submit late applications. The
SUFAC wants to extend the deadline for
two because SUFAC members are friends
with members of those two organizations
and not with the others.
Q: Is this a potential viewpoint neutrality
concern?
SCENARIO # 14
A campus SUFAC has a total budget of
$100,000 for the 2012-2013 funding year. In the
past, the student committee has been able to
approve each group’s funding request.
This year, there are 5 new groups seeking
funding. If the student committee funds the
previous groups in a similar fashion, there will not
be enough funds left over for 2 of the new
groups
.
Q: Is there a viewpoint neutrality issue
present?
SCENARIO # 15
A popular student organization is seeking
funding this year. Part of its funding request includes
a campus function involving a Republican
representative who will come speak to the campus
about the recent economy and its impact on college
graduates. In addition, the organization will also be
recruiting new members as a part of this event.
The funding request includes $5000 for “food”
to be served during the function. The student
committee has concerns about this “food” expense,
but wants to support the function because a majority
of the student committee members are highly
supportive of Republican views.
SCENARIO # 15 (Con’t.)
Q: If the student committee approves
the funding request even though they truly
believe the food cost is “excessive,” is there
a viewpoint neutrality violation?
Q: Are there other concerns with this
event?
A Few Final Thoughts
VPN
does not
require “One Size Fits All”. Can
consider each organization, club and event on a
case-by-case basis.
VPN
does
require SUFAC to avoid making funding
decisions on the basis of viewpoints, opinions,
political interests and personal beliefs of a group,
organization or club.
SUFAC should work with Student Affairs Staff and
vice versa to address questions/concerns.
Goal is to have a Viewpoint Neutral Allocation!
Be Fair!
Q
U
E
S
T
I
O
N
S
?
T
h
a
n
k
Y
o
u
F
o
r
Y
o
u
r
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
!
Explore the concept of viewpoint neutrality in student fee allocations, focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Southworth v. Board of Regents. Learn about the constitutional mandate for public institutions to remain neutral in funding decisions and the history behind the Southworth case. Discover practical applications and scenarios related to maintaining viewpoint neutrality in educational settings.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
VIEWPOINT NEUTRALITY SUFAC
Overview of Program What is Viewpoint Neutrality ? Brief overview of U.S. Supreme Court s decision in Southworth v. Board of Regents Practical Application of Southworth decision Scenarios
Disclaimer Offering general tips and information on viewpoint neutrality Discussion and information provided herein is not legal advice Scenarios are hypothetical in nature If a real issue arises, we contact Student Affairs or legal counsel
Viewpoint Neutrality A neutral point of view is neither sympathizing with nor disparaging the subject. The neutrality principle prevents public universities from discriminating against student orgs on the basis of the views they express.
Introduction An understanding of Southworth v. Board of Regents is necessary in order to ensure that students who are involved in actual funding decisions comply with constitutional mandates. (Southworth v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. System, 529 U.S. 217 (2000))
What is the Constitutional Mandate? 1stAmendment of the U.S. Constitution creates a constitutional right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. A public institution must remain viewpoint neutral when making decisions regarding fee allocations to student groups or organizations. SUFAC which makes recommendations/decisions on fee allocations must not base its decision on the viewpoints espoused (expressed) by a group or organization.
History of Southworth A group of concerned students challenged UW- Madison s allocation of segregated fees, claiming that it was unconstitutional to compel them to financially support groups that espoused political and ideological views with which they did not agree. A court ruled that the fee system in place at that time was unconstitutional on the grounds that the process was not operated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. Viewpoint neutrality means that the viewpoint espoused by the group is not taken into consideration when making funding decisions. The law suite stated there was no viewpoint-neutrality which violated the First Amendment right to the freedom of speech and association.
Southworth History Cont. In a subsequent related case, a court ruled that Madison s segregated fee funding system is constitutional as long as students do not have unbridled discretion in the allocation of student fees. Ability to grant preferential treatment to favored student orgs. Madison s system avoided unbridled discretion because of objective/viewpoint neutral criteria for evaluating fee requests and a comprehensive appeals process. The court also found it helpful that the student government participated in viewpoint neutrality training.
Supreme Court Finding US Supreme Court unanimously allowed the collection of mandatory student activities fees by the University of Wisconsin System only if they are spent in a viewpoint-neutral manner without bias toward programs.
Practical Application of Decisions Decision-makers should not have unbridled discretion. Have objective rules in place Maintain checks and balances Review and/or appeal process Appeal to the Chancellor Compare grant amounts to determine whether similar organizations were treated equally and fairly. NOTE: Similar does not mean that the organization had the same purpose, but rather whether requests were similar in nature.
Practical Applications Cont. DO OPERATE IN A VIEWPOINT NEUTRAL MANNER BY: Establishing eligibility criteria that is neutral on its face: Must be unrelated to viewpoint/content of group s speech. Must not have effect of excluding unpopular minority viewpoints. Considering use of funding application and attached budget(s), and apply common sense and fairness to those documents to determine whether to grant funding.
Practical Application of Decisions DO NOT consider the viewpoints espoused by the group when considering fee allocation Jazz club vs. country-western club Men s rugby team vs. women s tennis team Democrats vs. Independents A group s participation in an event that includes speakers on women s rights A religious group that holds an event to raise awareness on abortion
SCENARIO # 1 Joe and Susie have been on the student financial affairs committee for the past 3 years. They have watched a highly popular student organization s funding levels increase each year. Because of their experience on the committee, Joe and Susie are well aware of this organization s prior requests, justifications and expenditures. They are both concerned that the funding is getting excessive merely because the group keeps seeking new events and opportunities on and off campus. Joe and Susie want to educate the new committee members so that they don t automatically buy into the next funding request, which they expect will be more than $20,000 above last year s budget.
SCENARIO # 1 (Cont.) Q: Is this group s previous budget information appropriate for the committee to discuss among themselves during the funding reviews? Q: Can a committee member share their thoughts and opinions about a group s prior activities during the budget review?
SCENARIO # 2 Joe and Susie have served on SUFAC for a few years together. In the past year, Joe has confided in Susie that he will never support a particular organization because it is against his religious beliefs. In the past, when the organization s budget request came up for review, Joe always came up with a minor, but unrelated reason for voting to deny the request. The group s budget is up for review. Susie isn t sure what to do. Q: Should Susie do anything? If so, what?
SCENARIO # 3 A student organization presents a budget request to the SUFAC in which it proposes 10 events for the upcoming year with 10 presenters, including $XXX amount for travel, hotel and cab fare. In justifying the amount sought, the organization explains that these 10 events are necessary for the organization to fulfill its mission and meet its overall objectives as a group. Q: What if the SUFAC disagrees with the number of events?
SCENARIO # 4 A student jazz club has specific requirements in order to properly maintain its musical instruments. This year, the club has decided that because it has been playing more often as a club, additional tuning/maintenance is required. It now seeks 3 times the amount for maintenance from last year. Q: If a few SUFAC members disagree with the increase on the basis that they believe it is unnecessary, does this create a VPN issue?
SCENARIO # 5 A student organization has had the same advisor for many years. The group and the advisor are very close. The advisor has recently revealed to the organization that he is in serious financial trouble. A few weeks later, the organization proposed its funding request to the SUFAC and requests additional funds in the amount of $2000 as a gift for its advisor. The SUFAC reviews this organization s request last and decides that there is just enough money left for such a one-time gift. Q: Is this an appropriate use of funds?
SCENARIO # 6 A member of the SUFAC has been frustrated with the funding approval process, policy restrictions, and the ongoing concern about violating VPN. She talks with other members and is considering quitting. Q: What should the member do?
SCENARIO # 7 Susie is an officer for a student organization on campus. This year, she became a member of the campus SUFAC. Susie is highly ethical, very fair and would never make decisions on a matter in an improper or unfair way (which is why she joined SUFAC). The student organization has submitted a request for funding this year, similar to previous years. Susie, being fair and just, engages in the funding deliberations for each request, including the organization to which she is an officer. Q: Does Susie s involvement in the deliberations for funding the organization for which she is an officer create an issue?
SCENARIO # 8 The SUFAC members have been having discussions lately about the Southworth decision and constitutional rights of organizations. One of the SUFAC members has decided that the safest thing to do is to fund every group an equal amount every year. That way, there can be no claim that one group was treated differently than another. Plus, it makes the process go quickly. Q: The other members disagree with this approach but are also concerned about funding one organization more than another. What should they do?
SCENARIO # 9 A new club has requested funding this year. The club only has about 15 members so far, has not established a strong presence on campus yet, and likely, any funding provided will only benefit a very small amount of the campus population this year. Q: If the student committee denies the request based upon its assumption that the club isn t ready yet or won t be successful, does it create a viewpoint neutrality concern?
SCENARIO # 10 A SUFAC committee is reviewing a club s request for funding. The club has been in operation for 5 years. Last year, the committee approved a significant amount for this club because it was invited to compete in a national tournament. The club is seeking another significant amount this year for another tournament in New York. Upon reviewing this request, the committee learned that last year, the club only needed 6 members to compete in the conference, but sent its officers as well because it had the funds left over to do so.
SCENARIO # 10 (Cont.) Q: What factors should the committee consider in making its decision? Q: What if the opposite were true and the club had only spent of its approved budget from last year, but now wants the full amount again? Should the committee consider this?
SCENARIO # 11 A new RSO applies for funding. During deliberations, a committee member decides to vote not to approve the funding request because it has no track record and the committee member doesn t know what the organization will really do with the money. Q: Is this permissible under viewpoint neutrality?
SCENARIO # 12 A member of the SUFAC knows members of an RSO that is requesting funding and tells them not to worry about funding because he is sympathetic to their cause. Q: Is this a potential viewpoint neutrality violation?
SCENARIO # 13 Out of a total of fifty RSOs applying for funding, six submit late applications. The SUFAC wants to extend the deadline for two because SUFAC members are friends with members of those two organizations and not with the others. Q: Is this a potential viewpoint neutrality concern?
SCENARIO # 14 A campus SUFAC has a total budget of $100,000 for the 2012-2013 funding year. In the past, the student committee has been able to approve each group s funding request. This year, there are 5 new groups seeking funding. If the student committee funds the previous groups in a similar fashion, there will not be enough funds left over for 2 of the new groups. Q: Is there a viewpoint neutrality issue present?
SCENARIO # 15 A popular student organization is seeking funding this year. Part of its funding request includes a campus function involving a Republican representative who will come speak to the campus about the recent economy and its impact on college graduates. In addition, the organization will also be recruiting new members as a part of this event. The funding request includes $5000 for food to be served during the function. The student committee has concerns about this food expense, but wants to support the function because a majority of the student committee members are highly supportive of Republican views.
SCENARIO # 15 (Cont.) Q: If the student committee approves the funding request even though they truly believe the food cost is excessive, is there a viewpoint neutrality violation? Q: Are there other concerns with this event?
A Few Final Thoughts VPN does not require One Size Fits All . Can consider each organization, club and event on a case-by-case basis. VPN does require SUFAC to avoid making funding decisions on the basis of viewpoints, opinions, political interests and personal beliefs of a group, organization or club. SUFAC should work with Student Affairs Staff and vice versa to address questions/concerns. Goal is to have a Viewpoint Neutral Allocation! Be Fair!
QUESTIONS? Thank You For Your Participation!
