1. What does viewpoint-neutral funding mean?

Viewpoint-neutral funding means that funding decisions cannot be based on a group’s point of view.  Thus, an organization cannot be denied funding because it advocates a particular opinion, no matter how deplorable or unusual.  Viewpoint neutral criteria for evaluating funding proposals would only consider factors that are NOT tied to viewpoint such as fiscal responsibility, relevance to mission, and level of services provided.

2. Does viewpoint neutrality mean that funding levels must be equal for all organizations?

No. Viewpoint neutrality is about the process, not the outcome.  So, different groups may be funded at different levels, but NOT because of the viewpoints that they espouse.  Different organizations require different amounts of money to function effectively on campus.  It would usually be absurd to suggest that the chess club should receive the same amount of money as the student newspaper.  The newspaper costs more money to run and serves a larger percentage of the campus population.

3. How do you make sure that a funding process is viewpoint neutral?

Though funding allocation processes vary across the country, there is a set of basic criteria that should be adopted to ensure the process is viewpoint-neutral:

i. The group must be an officially registered organization; 

ii. The group and/or activity must demonstrate how it contributes to the university’s mission; 

iii. The group must present a detailed plan about its mission, goals and activities;

iv. The group and/or activity must not duplicate current offerings;

v.The group and/or activity must be open to all students;

vi. The group’s proposal must be fiscally responsible;

vii. The group must attend its hearing. 

And to further ensure a viewpoint-neutral process, the student government, and its committees, should adopt the following policies:

i. The student government (or the appropriate committee) must document all hearings regarding a group’s request;

ii. The student government (or the appropriate committee) must have a clear, fair and open appeals process that follows a reasonable timeline;

iii. The student government’s (or the appropriate committee’s) funding decisions must be based on how the group met the above criteria and not on the group and/or activity’s viewpoint or opinions.

4. Is it unconstitutional to use referenda in funding decisions?

The answer depends upon the type of funding decision to be made by referendum.  A critical distinction exists between the use of referenda to determine a group’s eligibility to receive funds and the use of referenda to determine the amount of funds allocated to a group that has already been deemed eligible.  Although the distinction may seem pedantic, the difference is of the utmost significance.  If in order to be eligible for funding a group had to win majority support in a referendum, it is easy to see how minority and unpopular viewpoints would be discriminated against.  So, it is clear that referenda as a means of determining eligibility for funding are inappropriate. 

However, when a referendum is used to determine or advise the amount of an allocation for a group or activity, then the referendum can serve as a legitimate measure of the number or amount of services to be provided by the group.  It is a common sense notion that the amount of funds allocated should be a function of the number of students who benefit from the group’s presence on campus.  Consider a concrete example.  Suppose that both a pro-life group and a pro-choice group were applying for funding at the same university and suppose that both groups were determined eligible by a rigorous, viewpoint neutral process.  Now also suppose that the pro-life group has 500 members while the pro-choice has only 5.  Clearly, the pro-life group is supported by more of the campus community and thus needs a greater amount of money to serve its larger body of members.  If the funding process ignores this vast difference in student support between the two groups, then both would receive the same amount of money.  Yet, such a decision would effectively amplify the voice of the pro-choice group at the expense of the expressive rights of the pro-life group – effectively discriminating against the more popular pro-life group.  In order to avoid viewpoint discrimination, allocation decisions must take popularity and levels of use into consideration.  A referendum is a useful and appropriate tool for informing those allocation decisions. 

5. Are organizations that engage in off-campus activities eligible for funding?

Yes, so long as such activities are consistent with the educational mission of the university.  The Supreme Court is quite clear on this point--“We make no distinction between campus activities and the off-campus expressive activities of objectionable [student organizations].

We find no principled way, however, to impose upon the University, as a constitutional matter, a requirement to adopt geographic or spatial restrictions as a condition for RSOs’ entitlement to reimbursement. Universities possess significant interests in encouraging students to take advantage of the social, civic, cultural, and religious opportunities available in surrounding communities and throughout the country.  Universities, like all of society, are finding that traditional conceptions of territorial boundaries are difficult to insist upon in an age marked by revolutionary changes in communications, information transfer, and the means of discourse.  If the rule of viewpoint neutrality is respected, our holding affords the University latitude to adjust its extracurricular student speech program to accommodate these advances and opportunities.”