MOST STUDENTS don't actually pay attention to our University bills aside from the total cost. So students generally don't notice the separate $39 Student Activity Fee. As the old saying goes, out of sight, out of mind. That little fee, however, has caused major controversy that recently went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in the process threatened to stifle universities' public forums for ideas. The SAF, in funding all viewpoints, fosters discussion that strengthens the community of ideas.
Strangely enough, the fuel for this controversy came from our own academical village. In 1995, the Board of Visitors denied Student Activity funds to the student magazine Wide Awake, fearing that funding a religious publication would violate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court overruled them, stating that Wide Awake represented a forum for opinion just like other student publications on Grounds, and therefore deserved funding. To avoid challenges by offended students, the University instituted a program of refunding $9.75 of the SAF upon request.
|
However, most universities don't provide a partial refund, prompting a group of students at the University of Wisconsin to sue. Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling in the 1996 case Board of Regents at the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth, saying that universities could require all students to pay SAF fees. This decision aids the University and schools across the nation in maintaining an educational mission of fostering intellectual stimulation both in and out of the classroom.
Some individuals argue that SAF funds shouldn't be given to Contracted Independent Organizations because any group that can't fund itself doesn't deserve to exist. In other words, we should embrace a sort of student activity Darwinism. This, however, neglects the problem that groups don't operate in equal circumstances. Some groups on Grounds have long histories at the University, and alumni associations from which they can obtain funding. These groups have a natural advantage over smaller, newer groups that can contribute to the climate of learning at the University, but need aid to get started. Most organizations would have to adopt mandatory dues, or raise existing dues, to compensate for a loss of SAF funds. For a person engaged in multiple activities, the bills add up, and most college students are perpetually short of cash. Therefore, dues discourage growth in membership, since students who have an interest in an organization can't try it out unless they pay dues.
Besides, Student Activity Fees are hardly a welfare system for student groups. According to Jay Cost, co-chair of the Appropriations Committee, one of Student Council's objectives in providing funds to CIOs is to help organizations achieve self-sufficiency. Appropriations asks CIOs to indicate their self-sufficiency rates from year to year and attempts to avoid giving huge allocations that would negatively impact that statistic. The current process ensures that groups don't get money that they don't really need because once a CIO achieves a high level of self-sufficiency -- generally between 60 and 70 percent -- Appropriations cuts its funding.
Those who object to their funds being used simply out of principle need to realize that CIOs aren't the only parts of a university that can offend people. Justice Souter wrote for the Court that in a university, "students are inevitably required to support the expression of personally offensive viewpoints ... unless one is prepared to deny the university its choice over what to teach." Once we attempt to restrict the public forum, there is no clear stopping point.
For example, students could ask to have a portion of tuition refunded because they found certain books in a course personally offensive. Most students probably find at least one course at this university offensive. But part of what makes this university such a great place is its willingness to experiment with different types of courses.
Some students here might snicker at the idea of African-American Studies, or Studies in Women and Gender. But both of these subjects serve a purpose similar to that of the less controversial American Studies: providing an interdisciplinary context for understanding the experiences of a group of people. This enriches students' perspectives in ways that will make them more globally informed citizens. Student groups --financed through activity fees -- that seek to promote these perspectives may offend some students, but challenging prejudices enriches the community.
The odds of people actually trying to act on their displeasure and get their SAF money back are pretty slim. A whopping 105 students actually requested partial refunds last year ("Supreme Court hears case against student activities fees," The Cavalier Daily, Nov. 10, 1999). This court decision is important to the University. With the ever-rising cost of lawsuits, the University is necessarily litigation-shy, and anything making us legally vulnerable naturally has a chilling effect on speech at the University. To protect the academic freedom of the University, we must continue to use student funds to allow all groups to participate, not just the most popular ones.
(Elizabeth Managan is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: QR codes have crashed the party
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 hours agoUndeniably, having such barriers to entry for the University’s nightlife explicitly squashes fun.
BRUNMAN: Politicization should not determine the Board of Visitors
By Wylie Brunman | 2 days agoAs an institution responsible to University students and Virginia voters, the main qualification standard for Board appointment ought to be some personal connection to both these stakeholders.
LETTER: Your U.Va. Health System coverage lacks important context
4 days agoI understand this event could be seen as “breaking news,” but your reporting left out relevant, easy-to-find, publicly available data to give it proper context.
