I have to give it to the Student Services Finance Committee. They have denied eligibility to the Jewish Cultural Collective, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow and the Roman Catholic Foundation of the University of Wisconsin on purely service-based criteria; Alex Gallagher and crew are finally applying the same criteria to each group equally. It would seem the segregated fee system at UW is finally back on track, right?

That's a trick question: There is no track. We're just waiting for the train to stop rolling downhill and hit rock bottom. And it will once SSFC realizes viewpoint neutrality is infeasible.

Let us review the case that started all this, for the umpteenth time. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Scott Southworth v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents that our segregated fee system was only legal if those fees were distributed in a "viewpoint neutral" manner. In theory, this is a viable system. If those doling out fees simply remove all consideration of the group's viewpoint from budget decisions, the system works.

However, as we've seen in the past few years, practice rarely mirrors theory. Not only has viewpoint neutrality taken some blows over the years, it is virtually impossible to execute.

Viewpoint neutrality means the ideological viewpoint of an organization cannot be considered in funding decisions. Sounds fine, right? As long as organizations are each given a fair hand based on specific forum-based criteria, there should be no problem. Sorry, viewpoint neutrality still fails. It's not the fault of SSFC representatives, but rather, whoever designed the "working" criteria.

First off, eligibility has one semantic chink in its armor. The decision of whether to fund a group depends on its ability to demonstrate that it provides an educational service beyond that of programming and leadership to the entire student body — an "additional significant component."

The first question you may ask — "What the hell does ‘significant' mean?" — is a valid one. The answer is just as vague as the criteria. JCC was denied eligibility last week because what was considered its "additional significant component" — a student-produced newsletter called "The Voice" — was not deemed "significant." This came as a shock to JCC, which had used this newsletter to justify eligibility for the last four years. As JCC spokesperson Alex Sheridan said, "If we are held to a higher status of significance, it needs to be explained what that significance means." Needless to say, they're appealing.

What definition of "significant" is SSFC using? Significant in terms of centrality to the mission or significance in what it offers to the students? With the vague definition, "significant" allows a subjective evaluation of that group's services that can read as a dismissal of that group's contribution to the public forum based on its content.

However, the fatal flaw comes with the budget criteria. One of the key criteria during budget deliberations is whether or not the budget is "reasonable" given the objective that group has set for itself. For this criterion alone, viewpoint neutrality is impossible. That is because it forces SSFC members to consider what is needed to accomplish the organization's mission, meaning they would have to consider the viewpoint of that group in order to accurately evaluate that group's need.

Let's use Sex Out Loud for an example. One of SOL's objectives is to educate students on the necessity of safe sex. As such, its budget outlines a need for a certain amount of dental dams and condoms. Now, while I'm sure most of us agree that condoms should be a necessary expense for sex education, SSFC is required to ask: Is it needed to achieve its objective? To even pose that question means SSFC members must evaluate the group's mission objective, and thereby, the viewpoint. While the value judgment isn't explicitly stated, the fact that SSFC members can keep or remove any item needed to achieve the mission SOL has set for itself means that SSFC places itself in SOL's shoes. If SSFC's reasoning for striking a vibrator from the budget is, "We don't believe you need this to teach safe sex," it is claiming knowledge of the optimum combination of supplies needed to accomplish SOL's mission, which assumes it has already considered — and denied — that group's viewpoint.

Viewpoint neutrality doesn't work, and if organizations recognized that fact, they could appeal any SSFC decision, regardless of content and outcome.

There really is only one option to abide by neutrality standards and still fund student organizations: Allow the groups to define their funding needs through their own objective, but make budget decisions based on nothing more than receipts of projects, staff and supplies. Sounds insane, doesn't it? However, given the restrictions placed on segregated fees by the Supreme Court, there isn't another range of options, outside of eliminating segregated fees altogether.

Perhaps SSFC will prove me wrong. Perhaps, miraculously, it will go about budget discussions without any reference to mission or viewpoint, and it will assume the role of fiscally-focused automatons. Yet, given its history, I highly doubt it.

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