NEWS
NY students sue university over student-group funding
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Liv Swenson:
- Universities grant students extra cramming time with study days (May 6, 2004)
- Federal agencies moving to tap Internet communications (April 19, 2004)
- Women see pay increase with bachelor's degree; men do not benefit (April 21, 2004)
- Princeton dean proposes to limit top grades (April 14, 2004)
- Michigan law school sues American Bar Association (April 9, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Catholic group sues UW again (September 11, 2007)
- SSFC denies contract funding (September 7, 2007)
- Southworth ruling verifies fee allocation system (December 12, 2002)
- Organizations present cases to finance committee (September 18, 2007)
- Southworth ruling verifies fee-allocation system (December 12, 2002)
by Liv Swenson
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
After a second attempt to garner funding from the University at Albany in New York failed, the conservative student group Collegians Action Leadership League of New York has filed a lawsuit against the State University of New York System and the UAlbany Student Association.
<p>The student group bases the lawsuit on the opinion that they should receive the same funding as their liberal counterpart, the New York Public Interest Group. NYPIRG receives more than $100,000 each year in student funding through a referendum method that allows students to decide whether to contribute part of their tuition to a student group. CALL-NY received about $1,000 last year from the student association, but the group wants to up that to $106,000, which amounts to a $5 fee from each student per year.
<p>CALL-NY has tried to receive student funding twice before, first last spring and recently last fall. The student government at UAlbany refused the group’s eligibility for the funds for a second time, which is what spurred the group to sue.
<p>CALL-NY is assisted by the Campus Leadership Program, a division of the Leadership Institute that helps students start and maintain conservative groups on campus.
<p>”CALL-NY addresses the same issues as NYPIRG, but from a conservative viewpoint,” Campus Leadership Program Director of Public Relations Jim Eltringham said. “They think that they should be able to get the same funding.”
<p>The Wisconsin counterpart to NYPIRG is the Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group, which deals with environmental and political issues from a liberal standpoint. The conservative group similar to CALL-NY is Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups are funded by student fees, unlike the situation in New York. WISPIRG received $75,500 in funding last year, and will receive $95,000 in funding next year. CFACT received $69,000 last year and will receive $78,000 next year.
<p>ASM Finance Director Ben Hawke was surprised to hear that CALL-NY does not receive student funding, as its Wisconsin counterpart does. At the University of Wisconsin, all student groups receive funding from student fees if they meet certain requirements; political affiliations are not taken into account.
<p>In 2000 the Supreme Court heard the case of <i>Southworth v. the Board of Regents</i> over the issue of student funding. The case dealt with political affiliations of the student groups in relation to the funding they receive. In 2002, Judge John Shabaz ruled that, when deciding which groups get student funding and how much, the student government cannot take into account the group’s political or religious views.
<p>”The ruling in the Southworth case applies to everyone but was especially for Wisconsin,” Hawke said.
<p>The difference between Wisconsin and New York may be related to the process in which the student government allocates funding. The UW’s student organization funding branch is the Student Services Finance Committee, and both WISPIRG and CFACT have SSFC status, unlike groups such as the Sierra Student Coalition, which does not.
<p>There have been no recent developments in the case as to when the case will go to court. The University at Albany declined to comment, as it has not been named as a party in the case.
<p>
Anonymous (December 22, 2004 @ 3:43pm):
New York Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow
*Media Advisory*
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 20, 2004
CONTACT:
Eric Amidon- (607) 329-8000
Marcus Povinelli- (518) 588-5478
On Tuesday December 14, 2004 the New York chapter of Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT NY) filed suit against the Student Association of the University of Albany, State University of New York. The suit was filed in U.S. Federal District Court-Northern division.
In 2003 the leadership of CFACT NY went before the University of Albany Student Association to ask that the same equal rights that are given to the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) be given to their organization. They also requested that the University comply with the constitutionally required "viewpoint neutrality," which in practice means access to the referendum with NYPIRG for funding, and to be allowed equal funding as protected under the Southworth (529 U.S 217{2000}) and Rosenberger (515 U.S. 819{1995}) cases both decided by the United States Supreme Court.
The NYPIRG chapter at the University of Albany currently receives $106,000 from mandatory student activity fees, while CFACT -- a group distinguished from NYPIRG primarily by its viewpoint on public policy issues -- is not given access to the referendum. The lawsuit filed is to seek redress of this failure and to protect University of Albany students from viewpoint discrimination.
CFACT NY is a recognized student organization (RSO) at the University of Albany, State University of New York. CFACT NY is a non-for profit student run organization with a membership of over 100 students. Its main goal is to educate students on issues, including but not limited to environmental public policy, the constitutional role of government, the democratic process; education and educational choice; family issues such as divorce, abortion, adoption, and child care; economic issues such as budget and tax policy, economic growth, free enterprise; as well as national defense, foreign policy, international trade, promotion of social welfare, and related topics.
###
