 |
|
 |
|||
 |
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
I think that we
have enough justices to win,” remarks Jordan Lorence, lawyer
for Scott Southworth, a day after arguing the potentially
landmark case, Scott Southworth v. The Board of Regents of the
University of Wisconsin (U-W) in front of the Supreme Court.
If Mr. Lorence is correct, the case could dramatically change how
state universities throughout the country fund student
organizations. According to Mr. Lorence, the Court will most
likely “strike down the current system and tell the
University of Wisconsin to go back and try again.” Lorence
expects a near-unanimous Court to overturn the “referendum”
method of funding student organizations, whereby a group directly
petitions the student body for money via a ballot proposition.
Effectively, such a system lets 50.1% of the student body impose
its spending priorities upon the other 49.9%, creating what Mr.
Lorence declares “a tyranny of the majority.” While
such a system theoretically exists at Michigan, it is rarely used
(Michigan students last faced such a referendum Winter ’98,
when the “Yes! Yes! Yes!” campaign for a student regent
requested a special fee boost to fund their activities).
Therefore, any Court ruling narrowly tailored to encompass only
the “referendum” question will not likely affect the U-M. However, Mr. Lorence believes that Justices
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor and Kennedy favor his
side, which opens up the possibility for a broader verdict.
Disputing claims by the major media that Justice Anthony Kennedy
leans towards the Board of Regents, Mr. Lorence argues, “There’s
a difference between being asked difficult questions and having
the justices express disapproval” with one’s arguments.
Relating this reasoning to the possible “swing vote,”
he comments that Justice Kennedy “was clearly negative to
the University of Wisconsin.” A broader decision might take issue with the
other way Wisconsin funds student groups: disbursements by two
student government bodies, the General Student Service Fund and
Associated Students of Madison. Roughly speaking, these compare
to the Michigan Student Assembly’s Budget and Priorities
Committee and Community Service fund. Specifically, all three of
these student governments receive a block of money to allocate to
student groups. To prepare for any possible decision that
affects U-M, Vice-President of Student Affairs Royster Harper
plans to form a committee to study alternatives to the current
mandatory fee system. Declining to comment specifically on new
possible funding methods, calling such speculation “premature,”
Ms. Harper pointed out that the “range of possibilities are
as many as we can think of.” Ms. Harper expects the committee to form by
January and begin holding panel and small group discussions with
University students. According to Ms. Harper, the committees’
central challenge is that “everyone agrees that multiple
views are important but nobody wants to pay for them.” In
general, Ms. Harper feels that the discussion itself has more
value than any possible solutions the committee reaches,
commenting that “the question is more important than the
answer: how will we be able to do this?” Statements like that disturb Mr. Lorence.
“What I have seen at the University of Wisconsin is a very
weak attempt to protect students’ rights. These committees
like the one you’ve got at Michigan offer the most minimal,
begrudging changes.” Accordingly, Mr. Lorence worries that
such a committee might concern itself with finding a way to
circumvent the law rather than engage the University’s
“constitutional duty to protect students’ conscience.”
Ms. Harper disputes this position. “A
discussion of how to get around the law would be inappropriate.
... For me to do otherwise would be hypocritical.” Still, she would like to find some way to
maintain Michigan’s active campus student organizations.
“It isn’t even about financing the views, it’s
financing the stuff that happens in the [discussion these views
create].” Hence, “your ideas influence mine. That helps
me learn and grow.” Seeing the committee as one way to facilitate
an exchange of ideas, Ms. Harper states that the committee might
continue its work even if the Court does not uphold Southworth.
“It doesn’t matter what the Court decides; the
discussion is what we need to have,” Ms. Harper comments. Still, other observers are skeptical that the
Court will compel the University to change its fee system. MSA
President Bram Elias believes that “there are a bunch of
really big differences between their fees and system and ours. It
would take a very broadly conceived decision to affect U-M.” However, Mr. Elias dismisses as “not
entirely accurate” a statement the Daily paraphrased
and attributed to him. According to the Daily, Mr. Elias
said that the Southworth decision would not apply to U-M because
MSA allows students “to voice their objections to the
Assembly’s funding of certain groups.” This semester,
the Assembly doled out almost $150,000 to hundreds of student
groups, using money raised through mandatory fees. Like the
system at the U-M, the U-W permits students to object to the
funding of student groups. However, since all funding decisons
are made on a non-political basis, such objections cannot suceed. In general, only time will tell if Southworth
will seriously affect U-M. Jordan Lorence, for his part, will
carefully watch developments in Ann Arbor. If Michigan refuses to
implement any part of the Southworth decision that might apply,
he is prepared to use his resources to “have the courts help
the University obey the Constitution.” |
