Southworth FAQs
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.”
|