Today's constitutional issue, boiled down and oversimplified, is whether college students may be compelled to support political entities they despise. Two cases are percolating through the federal courts.
One case comes from the University of Wisconsin. It is now actively pending before the Supreme Court on a petition for review. The other case comes from the University of Oregon. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided that case on Feb. 23, but it too presumably will be appealed.Every college and university imposes a mandatory student activities fee. Most of the expenditures from these funds support athletics, health services, sponsored concerts and other noncontroversial purposes. A minor fraction is set aside in subsidies for student organizations, and here the trouble begins.
At the University of Wisconsin, a group of conservative students has challenged grants to 18 student organizations. The recipients include the Wisconsin PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), an offshoot of Ralph Nader's nationwide organization. It is not disputed that the 18 organizations engage in political and ideological activity. The UW Greens distributed campaign literature for Nader when he ran for president in 1996. The Women's Center lobbied against a bill to regulate abortions. Amnesty International worked publicly to abolish the death penalty. The Ten Percent Society advocated same-sex marriage.
The conservative students brought suit to stop the political and ideological grants. In their view, when students are compelled to pay the activities fee, they are thus compelled to support causes they oppose. Instead of free speech, the system fosters subsidized speech.
The dissenters won in the Wisconsin district court and won again in the 7th Circuit. A three-judge panel observed that the 18 targeted organizations have suffered no abridgement of their rights of free speech. The First Amendment protects their rights: "Of course it does," the court said. "They can lobby all they want, but the First Amendment does not guarantee that the government will subsidize speech."
In deciding in favor of the objecting students, the panel relied chiefly upon cases involving the payment of compulsory union fees. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that nonunion workers cannot be compelled to pay union fees that go into political advocacy. By the same token, attorneys cannot be compelled to pay for the lobbying activities of state bar associations. The same principle applies here.
The facts in the Oregon case may prove to be significantly different. At least the 9th Circuit thought so. The court came down in favor of the university authorities and against a group of conservative students.
On the Eugene campus, the student activities fund provides the entire support for more than 80 athletic, political and cultural organizations. The politically oriented groups include the usual suspects -- Amnesty International, Students for Choice, the National Lawyers Guild, the Lesbian and Gay Alliance, and another Nader offshoot, OSPIRG-EF (Oregon Students Public Interest Research Group, Educational Fund).
The university administration defends the grants as part of the university's educational program. Universities exist to develop students' potential to become educated and responsible citizens. Through such groups as OSPIRG-EF, students have "an opportunity to explore public policy issues."
I would be agreeably surprised to learn that OSPIRG-EF sponsors forums on such constitutional topics as "The Magnificent 10th Amendment" or "Desirable Limits on the Commerce Clause." Unlike the situation in Wisconsin, where the politically active PIRG is directly subsidized, in Oregon the theoretically separate OSPIRG receives no support from the activities fund. It is a fair presumption that Oregon's two PIRGs are ideologically joined at the hip.
If the PIRG-EF is genuinely nonpartisan, perhaps it does contribute to the overall educational purposes of the university. The two-PIRG arrangement may save the constitutional point. Nothing prevents the conservative students from forming their own 10th Amendment Caucus in a similarly nonpartisan way. Nobody here but us nonpartisans.
I hope the high court ends up by ruling on these cases. On a per capita basis, we are talking of nickels and dimes, but the principles are as large as the sums are small. If I were anti-abortion, I would object to seeing even a penny of my activities fee diverted to Planned Parenthood. If I believed in the death penalty, I would holler at seeing my money channeled to Amnesty International. Let free speech reign! But don't make me pay for it.
Universal Press Syndicate