= Premium Content

  • Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Judge Says U. of Wisconsin Does Not Have to Give Student-Fee Money to Conservative Group

October 27, 2011, 1:14 am

In a ruling released on Wednesday, a federal judge said he would not force the University of Wisconsin at Madison to award money from mandatory student fees to a conservative student group called Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Wisconsin State Journal reported. The group, known as CFACT, sued in 2009, saying the university had veered from a policy of awarding funds on a “viewpoint neutral” basis when it denied the conservative organization’s request, while at the same time awarding funds to the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group. CFACT argued that the two groups were essentially identical, but that WISPIRG was politically liberal while CFACT was politically conservative.

In his opinion, Judge Lynn S. Adelman of the U.S. District Court in Milwaukee noted that WISPIRG had subsequently been cut off from student-fee funds. “If in the future the defendants make funding decisions that result in disparate treatment of CFACT and WISPIRG, the affected students can bring a fresh suit for injunctive relief,” he wrote.

The university’s policy on mandatory student fees has been the subject of numerous court rulings over the years and reached the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2000 case, University of Wisconsin v. Southworth.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • jesor

    Something tells me there was a lot more to this case.  Just because your organization presents an opposing view doesn’t mean you automatically get identical funding.  Funding decisions are based on budget presentations and whether or not the group has a clear plan for bringing additional content to the campus dialogue.    If it doesn’t, then it shouldn’t matter what the group’s perspective is.

    The SPIRGs tend to cloud this up a bit though since they often serve as contracted lobbying organizations at the legislative level for the student bodies, and don’t necessarily perform their speech on the campuses but rather for the campuses.   It’s a shame that the case didn’t go forward since that would leave open the possibility that it’s a situation that may be outside of the Southworth ruling and closer to the rulings on labor lobbying.

  • Guest

    I am in Wisconsin a lot because my daughter lives there (I live in California). From what I know of the U of Wisconsin system, this was a straightforward case of discrimination. The university saved itself by cutting off funding to the liberal group. I can see where you are coming from, jesor, but I think decisions “based on budget presentations and whether or not the group has a clear plan for bringing additional content to the campus dialogue” gives too much leeway for administrators and student bodies to squelch unpopular views. They need to have a clear and consistent set of criteria for awarding funding drawn from student fees. The judge’s decision was a wise one and it’s unfortunate that the Chronicle placed such a misleading title on this Ticker entry. The judge basically says the college has to give comparable funding to opposing sides and the rightist group has standing for future lawsuits if the inequity is repeated — this is not the same as the CHE headline implying that the conservative group’s case was dismissed.

  • crunchycon

    Why is this not surprising to me?

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.