Viewpoint neutrality

2010-01-11T16:30:57Z

Tpaw2012: Clarifying viewpoint neutrality example and fixing typo.

The '''viewpoint neutrality''' principle prevents public universities from discriminating against student organizations on the basis of the views they express. For example, they can't sponsor a "[[gay rights]]" student group while banning a Christian group for the sole reason of the organization's viewpoints. Students are permitted to withhold activity fees when such discrimination exists.

{{quotation|In the area of university sponsored
speech, the Court has decided two vitally
important cases, in 1995 and in 2000, which both clearly
held that universities must remain viewpoint neutral when
funding student organizations. Viewpoint neutrality
means that public universities, in making their decisions
about funding, may not take into consideration what
position or opinion a student or group of students stands
for or advocates. [http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/free-speech-2.pdf Free Speech - The Basics] - [[FIRE]] }}

See:
*[[Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)]]
*[[Board of Regents v. Southworth| University of Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000)]]

See also:
*[[Academic freedom]]
[[Category:Education]]
[[Category:Political Terms]]

Board of Regents v. Southworth

2010-01-11T16:29:09Z

Tpaw2012: Removed some misleading information about viewpoint neutrality. Schools can't take viewpoint into consideration, which is different than funding liberals/conservatives equally.

In '''''Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth''''', 529 U.S. 217 (2000), the unanimous [[U.S. Supreme Court]] allowed the collection of mandatory student activities fees by the [[University of Wisconsin]] only if they are spent in a viewpoint-neutral manner:<ref>''Id.'' at 220</ref>

:"The First Amendment permits a public university to charge its students an activity fee used to fund a program to facilitate extracurricular student speech if the program is viewpoint neutral. We do not sustain, however, the student referendum mechanism of the University's program, which appears to permit the exaction of fees in violation of the [[viewpoint neutrality]] principle. As to that aspect of the program, we remand for further proceedings."

The Court continued:<ref>''Southworth'', 529 U.S. at 229.</ref>
:"The government, as a general rule, may support valid programs and policies by taxes or other exactions binding on protesting parties. Within this broader principle it seems inevitable that funds raised by the government will be spent for speech and other expression to advocate and defend its own policies."

The Court assumed that compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise [[First Amendment]] concerns.

Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justices [[William Rehnquist]], [[Sandra Day O'Connor]], [[Antonin Scalia]], [[Clarence Thomas]], and [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]. Justice [[David Souter]]( joined by Justices [[John Paul Stevens]] and [[Stephen Breyer]]) filed a concurring opinion.

== References ==

<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=98-1189 Case] at FindLaw (registration may be required)
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Viewpoint neutrality

Board of Regents v. Southworth