Most people don’t like to be compelled to pay for things they don’t want. Taxpayers rarely think, “The government sure is taking a lot of the money I earn, but I trust that in the wise judgment of the politicians, the money is being spent for the greatest overall good, so I’m content.” Quite a few revolts in history have been sparked by the perception that taxation was mostly funding high living for the favored few.
Mandatory student fee systems are a sub-species of the taxation beast. Most colleges and universities these days have established a policy of adding on to the tuition, room and board, and other education-related fees, a “student fee” that provides the school with a substantial pot of money which is then doled out among various student groups on campus. Exactly how the money is divvied up varies, but the principle is the same as taxation: We’ll take your money, then other people will decide how it’s spent.
Over the years, student fee systems have led to plenty of litigation. In the leading case, Southworth v. University of Wisconsin Regents, the Supreme Court held that mandatory student fee systems had to be operated on a “viewpoint neutral” basis. That is to say, without discrimination in favor of some political parties or philosophies and against others. And just like the Supreme Court’s 2003 decisions on the use of racial preferences in admissions, Southworth leaves a vast expanse of gray area for university officials.
Legal “gray areas” usually lead to disputes and that was the case recently with the student fee system at State University of New York at Albany (UAlbany).
Each student at UAlbany is compelled to pay $80 per semester into a fund which is then allocated among campus groups according to a student referendum. As a result of the most recent referendum, $5 of each student’s fee went to the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a left-wing activist organization. Several UAlbany students objected to being compelled to fund a group they regard as working against their interests, and the fact that they got to have a “say” in it by virtue of the referendum was no consolation. They sued.
The case was decided by federal district judge David Hurd on November 10. He ruled that the students were entitled to a refund of that part of their student fee that went to NYPIRG and that the referenda could no longer be used in allocating money to campus groups.
Judge Hurd wrote, “The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is that minority views are treated with the same respect as are majority views. That is essentially what is at risk in this case – unpopular speech will be made more expensive than popular speech because the student association will subsidize the popular speech.” The facts of the case clearly supported Judge Hurd’s position. Whereas the leftist NYPIRG received $106,000 in 2003-04, the conservative group Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow received just $1,200.
While this decision is a step in the right direction, it still leaves just about as much gray area as before. There is a solution to this problem, but it isn’t one that the judiciary should impose. The solution is for schools to put an end to their mandatory student fee systems.
The central objection to mandatory student fees is that they encourage student organizations to adopt a socialistic mindset, thinking that they are entitled to support from a coercively obtained fund of money. Mandatory student fee systems are just a small-scale version of pork barrel politics at the state and federal level. It would be much healthier if colleges and universities sent a capitalistic message to students – if you need money for something you want to do, look to your own capabilities.
Student organizations have many ways of raising money. They don’t have to wait for the authority in charge of student fees to hand them some cash. Quoted after Judge Hurd’s ruling, the executive director of NYPIRG said, “We have other funding sources, but we fully expect the same level of funding on campus.” That’s the problem. Students expect the easy money.
Morally and legally, schools would be making the right move if they abandoned mandatory fees. One of the best lessons they can teach their students is that activities should be paid for voluntarily by people who value them, not by those who have no choice