Last week, a new chapter was added to the seemingly never-ending saga between the segregated-fee distribution process on this campus and the attempt to achieve viewpoint-neutrality when Chancellor Wiley returned six student organization budgets for reconsideration to the Associated Students of Madison.

Mr. Wiley's recent action should send a strong signal to this campus that the current system for distributing segregated fees has finally run its course.

While the Supreme Court in Southworth v. Board of Regents of the UW System established that mandatory segregated fees may be collected as long as they are distributed in a viewpoint-neutral manner, the allocation of such fees in this manner almost always fails in practice.

ASM bylaws define viewpoint-neutrality as engaging in a decision "without considering the viewpoint being expressed by the recipient of the funds." Unfortunately, the past two semesters alone provided a plethora of examples to demonstrate that this standard fails to work on this campus, as any substantive cut to an organization's budget inevitably leads to allegations of viewpoint-neutrality violations.

Last semester, the University of Wisconsin Roman Catholic Foundation was originally denied segregated fee funding by the Student Services Finance Committee. After a visit to the Student Judiciary, the organization was granted eligibility. But six months and two viewpoint-neutrality violation hearings later, UWRCF still finds itself without a finalized budget.

Similarly, the Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow and Monkey Hoes — both registered student organizations — also experienced substantive cuts, and the Student Judiciary also found these cuts were the direct result of viewpoint discrimination. But these examples are by no means exhaustive.

Given the current situation on this campus, this board encourages a student to bring a legal challenge to the current law. But this action should be more than an as-applied challenge of the present form of distributing segregated fees to a particular student organization. Rather, the constitutionality of the entire method in which segregated fees are distributed should be questioned.

Unfortunately, until the courts address this process, this campus will continually be forced to distribute segregated fees with a standard that is both unworkable and impractical.

Brad Vogel did not participate in the crafting of this editorial.