Some of you may enter the University of Wisconsin asking yourselves, "Where should I start? There are so many classes but so little time to choose!"

Certainly, we cannot simply leap into every field UW has to offer. That's why we have cross-listing. Let me suggest a course that isn't in the timetable, isn't worth any credit, but you're still paying for it. I call it "Riding the Gravy Train: Segregated Fees and You." This monolith in the UW System touches on nearly every field in the liberal arts. Plus, it could use some help.

First, some history to get started. As early as 1927, UW assessed a charge, separate from tuition, to pay for maintenance of student facilities such as Memorial Union. This method continued through 1971 when the UW System was created. Since students wanted some control over their departing cash, Wisconsin lawmakers created the state statute of "shared governance" that, among other things, gave students a role in the fund's distribution. The statute gave students "primary responsibility" for allocation of certain funds, subject to approval by the chancellor and Board of Regents. After two major disputes at UW-Milwaukee and UW-Madison, the UW System created policies to resolve disputes between administration and students, as well as an appeal process if the disagreements can't be worked out.

Doesn't sound important? Well, what's more important than economics, especially when it empties your wallet? Last year, $365 of every tuition bill went to segregated fees. This results in around $28 million collected each year to fund major operations like the Wisconsin Union and University Health Services. The General Student Services Fund doles out money to 23 larger unique student groups such as the erotica aficionados at Sex Out Loud! or climate change skeptics at Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow. The Student Services Finance Committee examines each group's proposed expenses until a budget is passed for approval to UW Chancellor John Wiley, who — as is the case lately — rejects it. Why the scrutiny? Just the small matter of the First Amendment.

That brings us to the legal studies portion of our lesson, with source material care of former UW student Scott Southworth. In 1996, he got fed up with the system since it funded student groups he didn't agree with. According to Mr. Southworth, it was brazenly unconstitutional to force conservative sensibilities to pay for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Student Center, among others. He sued the university in court and won. UW appealed. Mr. Southworth won again. Eventually, the appeals process stretched all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they reversed the decision. A review of the Supreme Court case found UW could charge the fees, but had to distribute them in a "viewpoint-neutral" manner. Huh?

Enter political science. Basically, what "viewpoint-neutral" means is that the minority view is just as valid as the majority view. As much as one SSFC member may think students don't need hands-on experience with a "Fleshlight," that member can't slash Sex Out Loud!'s budget because the group is still a unique voice in the public forum. SSFC can cut small parts of a group's budget, but feuding between committee members often renders these moves futile. Since eligibility standards must be applied to each organization in a viewpoint-neutral manner, funding can't target the group's ideological slant.

Unless, of course, they do it anyway.

That's where philosophy enters the mix. Ethical decisions on the SSFC come up in nearly every decision, but when it came to funding the UW Roman Catholic Foundation, there were no college-age Aristotles to be found. UWRCF applied for funding, but it was rejected.

SSFC rationalizes, "But you're a religious group, you'll discriminate!" UWRCF persists and emerges with a small budget. The chancellor disagrees and takes away funding again. "But you're a religious group!" UWRCF sues UW, but applies for funding again. They're rejected again as SSFC screams, "But you're a religious group… and you're not an official organization!"

Eventually, UWRCF registers as a student org, but is rebuffed again. "But you're a religious group and… you don't have enough students running the place." After one more lawsuit and slew of arguments, the circuit court rules in favor of UWRCF, claiming "But they're a religious group… that's discrimination!" Eventually, the chancellor settles with UWRCF and its small amount of funding balloons to an absurd $260,000. Oh, and in the process, segregated fees no longer cover off-campus rent.

Journalism completes the liberal arts pantheon to investigate. Apparently, it's against state law to fund rent for off-campus buildings, or so a legal opinion written by UW legal counsel Patricia Brady argues. Except, a review of the state statutes reveals no such thing. Instead, SSFC argues Mr. Wiley broke shared governance because the legal opinion wasn't written in consultation with students. The Board of Regents swoops in and declares… nothing until August 7. That decision will be required reading.

Which brings us up to speed. So where does the class take place? At every SSFC meeting and budget negotiation. Come and go as you please, but remember, your grade depends entirely on participation.

And if you fail, everyone fails.

Jason Smathers ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.