Students' First Amendment Rights Need Better Protection In SGA Appropriations Committee

(Source: Flickr)

Recently, I was looking over the minutes of the committee that distributes funds to requesting student organizations for various activities, the Student Government Appropriations Committee (SGAC).

For the most part, SGAC has done a good job approving requests from whichever organization without regard to the organization’s expressed viewpoint. It has distributed hundreds of dollars to multiple religious and political student organizations, something the committee has not always done until recently.

However, one instance in 2017 should give First Amendment advocates cause for concern.

On Nov. 2, 2017, SGAC denied a request from the Society for Human Resource Management’s (SHRM’s) UT Tyler chapter for $73.29 on the basis that the committee determined the chapter's event would not be sufficiently beneficial to the student body. The committee wrote in its minutes:

This request was denied because SGAC felt it didn’t have the benefit the entire student body…. The SHRM request form estimated that it would benefit 100 students with this booth. The organization held this in the University Center last year, and had a minimal turnout....Booths typically have better success within the UC, and if this booth didn’t do very well there, there is doubt that it would do well within the Business Building. 

As a result, SHRM students, who are obligated to pay student fees like any other students, were denied their rightful share in student fee money.

Moreover, universities are obligated to distribute student funds based on Supreme Court case law, which the court has derived from protections in the First Amendment. Here is free speech advocacy group The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s (FIRE’s) summary of the Court’s view:

In two major cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “viewpoint neutrality” governs both the distribution of student fees and the question of whether students may opt out of paying a mandatory fee.  In the first case, Rosenberger v. Rectors of the University of Virginia (1995), the Court ruled that the University of Virginia violated the free speech rights of the student journalists producing a Christian campus newspaper when it denied that paper funding because of its “religious” views.  

In the second case, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000), the Court ruled that individual students have the right not to pay fees that fund groups they find objectionable if the university distributed money in a “viewpoint discriminatory” manner.  In these cases taken together Rosenberger and Southworth the Court identified a vital constitutional principle that always must decide student fee disputes at public colleges and universities: a viewpoint neutrality that stands opposed to its opposite, viewpoint discrimination.

So, SGAC must disburse funds in a viewpoint neutral manner according to Supreme Court case law. What does this mean? FIRE explains:

Viewpoint neutrality...stands for the idea that when government actions implicate the speech rights of groups and individuals, those actions must be done in an even-handed way. They may not discriminate based on the message advocated.  Thus, a city has the power to prohibit all speakers from using bullhorns to amplify their speeches on public streets at three o’clock in the morning.  If the city allows Republicans to make such speeches at that hour, however, it may not forbid Democrats from doing so too.  Such “viewpoint discrimination” would be a deviation from the constitutional requirement of viewpoint neutrality.  “Viewpoint discrimination” occurs when the government uses its power to advance one person’s opinion over another’s in such matters as religion, politics, and belief.

SGAC violated SHRM students’ First Amendment rights when it denied their request based on the determination that SHRM’s form of expression was not sufficiently beneficial in the committee’s eyes. This is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Yet this is not the first time SGAC has denied students their constitutional right to student fees. On Feb. 16, 2017, Christian group Reformed University Fellowship requested funds from SGAC for an upcoming event in which the group intended to host a political discussion about Christianity’s impact on politics. Yet, this didn’t fly with the committee. According to then-Senator Katie Hicken, SGAC denied the request because “the event that they were trying to do had some religious and political undertones.” The committee clearly had regard for the group’s content and chosen expression.

Moreover, when I was a student leader in 2015, members of Student Life and Leadership office told me political and religious groups cannot receive funds given their political and religious nature. Thankfully, the office corrected this policy.

But the fact remains: though the University has made praiseworthy strides to ensure SGAC policy honors First Amendment rights, it still has a ways to go. Student government can continue the school’s good progress by amending the SGAC policy to include an explicit statement that says the committee shall not deny funding to any registered student group based on the group’s viewpoint or the perceived value in the student group’s content. It can also provide protection for students rights by amending the policy to defer appeals to a paid University administrator rather than students on the SGA Judicial Board.

Overall, SGAC has done a good job approving fee requests from all sorts of student groups: religious ones and political ones. Nevertheless, SGAC still needs to improve and SGAC’s denial of SHRM’s request shows that. By making the changes above, SGAC can provide better protections for students’ First Amendment rights and make discrimination less likely in the future. For one of the best investments SGAC can make is to ensure its appropriations are discrimination-free.

Twitter: @jhescock