University of Wisconsin administration sent a memo Nov. 16 to the Student Services Finance Committee (SSFC) stating that university segregated fees can no longer be used to fund the rent of groups in non-university buildings. This move by the administration has significant ramifications to the ability of students to express themselves on campus and reach out to the community. But the issue is not just about rent. This is an attack on students' ability to decide how segregated fees are used and is a serious infringement on student rights.
Wisconsin Statute 36.09(5) states that "students shall have primary responsibility for the formation and review of policies concerning student life, services, and interests." The administration released a memo Oct. 15, 2004, stating that segregated fees cannot be used to rent facilities outside of the control of the University of Wisconsin. This resolution is a clear violation of this state statute, and therefore compromises the voice of students on campus.
The segregated fee system was born out of this statute. Each full-time student at UW pays $730 annually for services such as recreational facilities, University Health Services and student organizations. The fact that students have the "primary responsibility" for the allocation of these fees is further supported by University of Wisconsin System policy. System policy F37 requires the chancellor to negotiate with the students over disagreements concerning segregated fees. If irreconcilable differences remain, the decision is forwarded to the Board of Regents, and unless the funding decision contradicts state and federal law or university and student policy, the criteria forces the Regents to support the students (RPD 88-6). The conception that the chancellor ultimately controls the "purse strings" to segregated fees is erroneous.
In a 2004 memo to SSFC, the administration prohibited the use of segregated fees for the funding of rent for student organizations in non-university buildings. This dictum ignores the clear articulation that segregated fee allocation is the responsibility of the students. This decision reverses a 20-year precedent of using segregated fees for student organizations housed in off-campus facilities, and it was made without meaningful student input. This new policy is baseless. In fact, the only mention in system policy that concerns this states that "expenditures relating to the operations and activities of student organizations," explicitly including facilities, are "acceptable segregated fees expenditures" (System Policy F20).
The only document used by the administration to justify this dictum is a faulty interpretation of State Statute 36.09(5), stating that non-university overhead does not support "campus student activities" (memo from Interim Dean of Students Lori Berquam to SSFC, dated Nov. 16, 2006). This memo does not explain how the administration differentiated between the six student organizations, which lost rent funding, with the slew of other groups that receive on-campus rent. This represents a subjective interpretation of a very broad statement, made unilaterally by the administration, which affects the way students invest their segregated fees. It is ironic that the very statute originally intended to guarantee students' voice in the operations of the university is now being used to silence them. This is a violation of shared governance.
The idea behind segregated fees is simple. Students collectively invest money into the General Student Services Fund (GSSF) to receive educational and cultural experiences provided by GSSF-funded student organizations. Students maintain special authority over the allocation of this fund. The decision by the administration to prohibit the funding of office space for these organizations will cripple the ability of these groups to provide services on campus. Nearly every group that requests segregated fees for their operation requests some money for rent. Having a permanent center of operations is essential for offering the scope of services students are paying them to provide.
It is easy to say that these groups should have begun looking for university space in 2004, when this issue was originally addressed. There is not adequate space on campus for all these groups to receive sufficient office space. Groups who knew about the pending elimination of their rent budgets have yet to find a simple closet to store their equipment.
Furthermore, this is a violation of viewpoint neutrality and the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, as per the Supreme Court case Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v Southworth et al. The arbitrary discrimination against certain groups, based upon the time they requested space, constitutes a violation of viewpoint neutrality. Viewpoint neutrality as defined by the Southworth decision is a misnomer, since the specific views of an organization do not need to be considered to constitute a viewpoint neutrality violation. A viewpoint neutrality violation is committed whenever a budgetary decision is made based off of criteria that are not held equally to every group. Despite the fact that neither system nor university policy makes a distinction between on- and off-campus rent, the fact that some groups are being denied money for rent is a violation of viewpoint neutrality. Additionally, groups with on-campus space have their contracts annually renewed, while other groups desiring campus space cannot find it. This is discrimination against groups based on the amount of time they have existed. This specifically contradicts the Southworth decision. In addition, the Southworth decision states, "We make no distinction between campus activities and the off-campus expressive activities of objectionable RSO's (Registered Student Organizations) … [The Supreme Court of the United States] finds no principled way, however, to impose upon the University, as a constitutional matter, a requirement to adopt geographic or spatial restrictions as a condition for RSOs' entitlement to reimbursement." Denying rent simply because a group has an off-campus office is a blatant viewpoint-neutrality violation.
In the end, this issue is larger than the funding of rent. This is an issue of Student Rights. Students have the right to decide how their Segregated Fees are allocated. Students have the right to have "primary responsibility…for the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial support for the campus student activities" (ss. 36.09(5)). And even more basically, they have the right to the freedom of speech, as protected by the Constitution. The administration's decision to zero-fund rent to these groups has a larger implication for the maintenance of these rights. Unless students actively work to challenge the administration on this policy, they have granted the chancellor permission to usurp their rights in the most important decision concerning segregated fees — the very decisions in which they should have the loudest say. It is time for students to stand up to this dictum by the administration and demand the rights afforded to them.
Students can show support on this issue through a variety of avenues: Sign the petition circulating among campus organizations, talk with student council representatives, and join the "SAVE STUDENT RIGHTS!!!" group on Facebook.
ASM Student Council will be meeting Dec. 13 at 6:30 p.m. at Memorial Union TITU; come show your support.
–Student Rights Coalition