Law & Courts

Supreme Court To Hear Case on Mandatory Student-Activity Fees

By Mark Walsh — April 07, 1999 2 min read

The U.S. Supreme Court last week stepped into a debate that has swirled around many public college campuses: whether students can be forced to pay activity fees when some of the money goes to support groups they find objectionable.

The high court on March 29 accepted an appeal from the University of Wisconsin board of regents regarding lower-court rulings that the university could not require students to subsidize political and social groups with which they disagree.

The issue has not surfaced at the K-12 level, but the high court’s ultimate ruling in the case could have implications for other free-speech issues in public education. The lower courts in the Wisconsin case based their rulings partly on Supreme Court precedents that said teachers could not be forced to subsidize the political activities of teachers’ unions.

The dispute in Board of Regents v. Southworth (Case No. 98-1189) started in 1996, when several politically conservative law students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison sued over their mandatory activity fees.

The fees were $166 per semester, of which a relatively small portion went to subsidize student groups as determined by the student government.

The law students objected to the use of their money to support such groups as the International Socialist Organization; the Progressive Student Network; the UW Greens; and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Campus Center, all of which engaged in political and ideological advocacy.

Both a federal district court and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, based in Chicago, ruled for the students.

“The students, like the objecting union members in Abood [v. Detroit Board of Education], have a First Amendment interest in not being compelled to contribute to an organization whose expressive activities conflict with one’s freedom of belief,” the appeals court said last year.

Abood was a 1977 case in which the Supreme Court said teachers could not be forced to pay fees that went for a union’s political activities, although they could be required to pay collective bargaining fees.

In its appeal to the high court, the university argued that mandatory student-activity fees enhance free speech by supporting a forum in which groups with diverse views can thrive.

The appeals court “failed to apprehend the critical difference between being forced to support the speech of a particular group and being compelled to provide funding to create a forum for speech by any group,” the university said.

The case will be argued during the court’s next term.

Affirmative Action

Also last week, the court passed up an opportunity to decide an important issue concerning affirmative action plans in local government.

The justices rejected an appeal by the city of Dallas over an affirmative action plan in its fire department. In striking down a plan that gave preference to some women and minorities in promotion, a federal appeals court ruled there was insufficient evidence of past discrimination in the department. Many school districts have affirmative action plans that give employment preferences to racial minorities.

Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said they would have accepted the city’s appeal in City of Dallas v. Dallas Fire Fighters Association (No. 98-966). Writing for the two, Justice Breyer said the case presented a good opportunity for deciding what evidence courts should consider in weighing whether an affirmative action plan can be justified by past discrimination.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the April 07, 1999 edition of Education Week as Supreme Court To Hear Case on Mandatory Student-Activity Fees

Let us know what you think!

We’re looking for feedback on our new site to make sure we continue to provide you the best experience.

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Future of Work Webinar
Digital Literacy Strategies to Promote Equity
Our new world has only increased our students’ dependence on technology. This makes digital literacy no longer a “nice to have” but a “need to have.” How do we ensure that every student can navigate
Content provided by Learning.com
Mathematics Online Summit Teaching Math in a Pandemic
Attend this online summit to ask questions about how COVID-19 has affected achievement, instruction, assessment, and engagement in math.
School & District Management Webinar Examining the Evidence: Catching Kids Up at a Distance
As districts, schools, and families navigate a new normal following the abrupt end of in-person schooling this spring, students’ learning opportunities vary enormously across the nation. Access to devices and broadband internet and a secure

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Special Education Teachers
Lancaster, PA, US
Lancaster Lebanon IU 13
Speech Therapists
Lancaster, PA, US
Lancaster Lebanon IU 13
Elementary Teacher
Madison, Wisconsin
One City Schools
Elementary Teacher - Scholars Academy
Madison, Wisconsin
One City Schools

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court Considers Issue of Damages That Comes Up in Many Suits Over School Policies
The justices weigh whether students still have a case for "nominal damages" when schools change a policy in response to a lawsuit.
6 min read
supreme court IMG
iStock/Getty
Law & Courts U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh Whether Schools May Discipline Students for Internet Speech
The justices will hear the appeal of a school district whose discipline of a student for her vulgar message on Snapchat was overturned.
5 min read
Law & Courts District's At-Large Elections Violated Minority Voting Rights, Federal Appeals Court Finds
The case involves school board elections in a majority Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish district with a large Black and Latino population.
3 min read
Image of people at voting booths.
LPETTET/E+
Law & Courts Federal Appeals Court Revives Teacher's Pay-Discrimination Case Over Starting Salary
The court weighed an administrator's alleged comment that the teacher's starting pay was less because her husband worked.
3 min read