Group funding needs to change

The way that student groups are funded at IU needs to change. The system now is inherently discriminatory. It prohibits certain student organizations from receiving money collected from mandatory student activity fees on the basis of their views. The result is an inequitable funding arrangement that elevates some forms of student speech and discourages others. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently had much to say about mandatory fees and how they must be used to support extracurricular speech; IU should listen.\nIn 1997, Ronald Rosenberger challenged the constitutionality of the University of Virginia's student group funding program, which was, at the time, very similar to IU's present system. Student organizations seeking financial assistance to fund their activities were required to become listed by the university. Upon listing, they became eligible to reserve university rooms and facilities. \nSome listed student organizations were then also entitled to apply for financial support from the university's Student Activity Fund, composed of money collected through mandatory fees. UVA's guidelines recognized 11 categories of student initiatives eligible to receive SAF money. Rosenberger's student organization, Wide Awake Productions, was determined to meet the fund's eligibility requirements. \nAfter producing its first issue, which was designed to inform students of Christian religious teachings, WAP requested that the SAF pay its costs for printing the newspaper. The university refused, citing funding guidelines that excluded religious and political activities from SAF support. \nRosenberger sued on the grounds that the university's refusal to fund WAP's activities violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Court agreed. The majority opinion held that Rosenberger's First Amendment rights had been violated because the university's refusal to fund WAP's religious activities constituted viewpoint discrimination, which it determined to be impermissible when directed against speech otherwise within the SAF's limitations. \nIU's current funding arrangement is virtually identical to the one that the court struck down as unconstitutional in Rosenberger. Here, some listed student organizations are entitled to apply for financial support from the University's Student Organization Fund, which is also composed of money collected through a mandatory student activity fee. IU's guidelines recognize three categories of student initiatives eligible to receive SOF money: Academic and Graduate, Cultural and Diversity and Environmental and Social. \nIU also has additional guidelines that exclude "partisan political" and "sectarian or religious" activities from support.\nAs was the case at the University of Virginia, initiatives of student groups that are within the SOF's limitations are prohibited from receiving SOF funding if they express views that are political or religious in nature -- a violation of the viewpoint neutrality requirement in Rosenberger. \nIn a more recent case, University of Wisconsin v. Scott Harold Southworth, the court further substantiated the holding in Rosenberger. Mandatory fees may be imposed to sustain extracurricular speech only if the principle standard of protection for objecting students is the requirement of viewpoint neutrality in funding support. IU's current mandatory fee program is not viewpoint neutral. It does not adequately protect the First Amendment rights of students required by the Court. \nIU's purpose is not only to prepare students for professional employment but also to leave us "with a sense of ethical and social vision, a love of learning, and a complex, nimble intellect," according to IUB's mission statement. Its discriminatory and inequitable mandatory fee program, which serves to suppress what is arguably some of the most valuable, if not controversial, student speech, is compromising its ability to fulfill that mission. In doing so, it is also compromising our rights.