Ohio (2001)

A lawsuit filed as part of an ongoing effort to limit debate on college campuses is pending in the Southern District Court of Ohio. The original complaint was filed September 29th, 1998 on behalf of 11 students and 4 religious organizations at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, and is currently pending in the district court.

The complaint is based upon two points. First, the plaintiffs argue that religious organizations at Miami University are discriminated against because they are denied the same access to student activities fee funding as other campus groups. Second, the plaintiffs claim that the University's mandatory student fee policy violates their First Amendment protections against compelled speech by requiring students to financially support the activities of groups with which they might not agree.

Equal Access

The Supreme Court decision in Rosenberger v University of Virginia, which stated that universities cannot deny any student groups funding based upon their viewpoint, prompted the Miami University administration to revise their fee policy in 1996. The University opened the use of its facilities and office space to partisan and religious groups, and created a separate fund for these groups called the "Marketplace of Ideas Fund." In 1997-98, religious groups received close to $5000 from this fund for lectures and events. This includes grants of $560 and $1800 to Sigma Theta and For the Love of God, two of the groups now suing the University.

The religious groups and students suing the University are arguing that this "Marketplace" fund does not offer religious groups equal access to student activities fees. Whether or not the use of separate funds violates the Rosenberger mandate against viewpoint discrimination is one question currently under consideration by the Southern District Court of Ohio.

Mandatory Fees Create An Open Marketplace of Ideas

While the question of equal access at Miami University remains up to the Court's discretion, the complaint that mandatory fees are not constitutional was unequivocally refuted last year when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the constitutionality of mandatory fees in Southworth v University of Wisconsin Regents.

The plaintiffs in both the Southworth case and the Miami University case objected that the use of their mandatory student fees to fund organizations with whom they disagreed ideologically was a violation of their First Amendment protections against compelled speech. However, the Supreme Court resoundingly declared that the open marketplace of ideas created by student fees is integral to the educational mission of the university, and that the benefits it brings to the entire community outweigh the objections of individuals.

The Southworth decision is a strong endorsement of mandatory student fees, and will set a powerful legal precedent for the Southern District Court of Ohio's decision in the Miami University case.

Free Speech or No Speech?

Unfortunately for students, the effort by students at Miami University to ensure an equal voice for all viewpoints could be overshadowed by an underlying goal of this lawsuit: the elimination of mandatory student fees. It is an effort to limit debate on campus that is being driven by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). ADF is the right-wing legal foundation that has backed both this suit and similar cases in Wisconsin and Minnesota attacking mandatory student fees. ADF's literature claims their lawsuits will "eliminate millions of dollars from those who oppose biblical values, religious freedom, and the spread of the gospel".

ADF's motivation behind work on this issue is to forward their own political cause by dismantling student activities fees. Ironically, by joining ADF's legal strategy, these 11 students could ultimately limit their own access to a strong marketplace of ideas. Fortunately, the unanimous Southworth decision set a precedent for the protection of mandatory student fees and the wide variety of student expression that they promote.