More than five years ago, Scott Southworth was a University of Wisconsin law student who filed a lawsuit against the university and the Associated Students of Madison.

Tuesday, both parties received a court ruling in favor of the university and ASM’s current system of allocating student segregated fees. But the controversy continues.

Members of ASM said the court’s decision gives the stamp of approval to the bylaws that govern student-controlled segregated-fee use.

“Basically, the court is saying that we’re doing everything right and following all the necessary procedures,” said ASM chair Bryan Gadow.

Southworth’s case stated that ASM’s method of allocating segregated fees was not viewpoint-neutral. Viewpoint-neutrality became an issue, said Southworth council Jordan Lorence, because of concerns that Student Services Finance Committee members would abuse their power of deciding who would receive funding and how much money each group would get.

“The system was an ideological tug-of-war to fund the members’ friends and interests,” Lorence said.

If SSFC were granted “unbridled discretion,” Southworth and his supporters feared the hearings for eligibility and funding of student groups would be ruled by subjective factors such as members’ personal opinions, thus violating viewpoint-neutrality.

However, the court found ASM’s bylaws constitutional and equipped with standards to prevent unbridled discretion.

“This decision reaffirms that our system is viewpoint-neutral and allows for decisions that violate viewpoint-neutrality to be addressed,” Gadow said.

As an example of this system in action, Gadow pointed to the Student Judiciary’s decision to allow MEChA, a Chicano/Chicana group denied eligibility by SSFC, to hold a new hearing after the group presented a case against several committee members for viewpoint-neutrality violations. Three members were given warnings, and another was removed from his position in the ruling.

Jeff Pertl, president of the United Council, agreed that the court “spoke very highly of ASM” and commended its efforts to ensure viewpoint-neutrality.

“The court isn’t saying that people have to be perfect, but that the system protects against viewpoint-neutrality violations,” Pertl said.

Pertl also said the court’s decision confirmed that students should have control of their own segregated fees.

However, Southworth asserted that SSFC’s “control” of student money was corrupted by two faulty standards of eligibility that the court identified. Requiring student groups to report the number of years they have been in service and the amount of funding they have previously received were standards the court deemed unconstitutional.

“SSFC has to start all over again,” Southworth said. “Every decision they’ve made is unconstitutional.”

Lorence said funding received by groups under these unconstitutional standards in the past year should be refunded to the students.

In defense of SSFC’s decisions, committee member Faith Kurtyka said no eligibility or funding was ever denied based on the two standards, making retrials unnecessary.

Southworth and Lorence said the segregated-fee distribution system used by ASM is fundamentally flawed and should be dismantled.

Lorence suggested student groups seek funding from membership fees and donations.

Either way, student fees should not fund a collection of groups that serve only a small portion of the student population and support controversial views, according to Southworth.

“It’s time for the university to get responsible and stop mandating that students fund every extremist group for a small number of students,” Southworth said.

“Students could use that money for other necessities of life instead of giving it to a bunch of ideologues so they can run around the world playing politics.”

ASM members claim that money going to support diverse student groups adds to students’ education rather than taking away from their wallets.

“Just hearing different voices and points of view is part of our education here,” Gadow said. “By funding a group, we aren’t pushing their opinion on anyone, but we are giving people a chance to form their own opinions.”

Kurtyka added that ASM ensures that any group can have a voice on campus as long as it proves its merit. Under current ASM and SSFC bylaws, it is possible to “judge a group solely on the service they’re planning to provide”, Kurtyka said.

Lorence said he feels ASM should thank students like Southworth for the standards now governing their institution.

“The dogged determination of students like Scott forced the university to adopt these standards,” Lorence said.

The taste of victory is sweet, but Southworth suggested things may soon turn bitter for the university and ASM.

“The university may have won in court, but we won where it really counts — in the hearts and minds of the students,” Southworth said.