Wisconsin (2001)
In a victory for campus
free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court declined on March 26, 2001 to hear an appeal
of Hollingsworth v Lane Community College, letting stand a decision that, among
other things, held that the use of referendum on campus is constitutional. The
9th Circuit Court of Appeals added yet another strong precedent in support of
campus speech in the Spring of 1999 when it ruled in favor of the current student
activities fee system at Lane Community College in Oregon, which includes the
use of an advisory campus referendum process. The court's opinion in Hollingsworth
v Lane Community College, issued on March 24th, upholds a 1997 District Court
ruling that supports the marketplace of ideas created by student fees.
The case arose in 1995 when
three students at Lane Community College challenged the use of student activity
fees for programs they found politically and ideologically objectionable. The
Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group, represented the plaintiffs.
In the ruling, the 9th Circuit
rejected the plaintiffs' claims and placed a special emphasis on the role that
universities play in promoting civic participation. "Lane Community College
can articulate substantial governmental interests supporting the mandatory fee
scheme: promoting extracurricular activities, teaching specific skills and instilling
civic activism, and creating a forum for vigorous debate and free exchange of
ideas."
The Hollingsworth case also
addressed the use of a campus-wide referendum for the allocation of student
activities fees. Concerns about referenda were raised in Southworth, where even
though there was nothing concerning referenda in the record of the case, the
Justices' discussion made it clear that they saw potential conflicts between
a viewpoint neutral system and the use of referenda. Reading the opinion in
Southworth, it is clear that the justices' were concerned that requiring majority
support (through a referendum) would not protect minority views and therefore
violate viewpoint neutrality.
In the Hollingsworth case,
the student government allowed a non-binding or advisory referendum process
to inform fee allocation decisions. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld this use
of a referendum process, reasoning that since the process was advisory and was
not used to prevent any group from receiving funding, it did not violate viewpoint
neutrality.
The decision in Hollingsworth
v Lane Community College mirrors that in a very similar case, Rounds v the University
of Oregon. That ruling was announced on February 23, 1999 and held that the
mandatory student fee system at the University of Oregon was constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied
a writ of certiorari in March 2001 filed by the plaintiffs, thereby letting
stand the decision that reaffirms the importance of a wide array of student
expression promoting an open marketplace of ideas on college campuses.
Back to Archive
|