University's mandatory student activity fee ruled constitutional.

The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment permits a public university to charge its students a fee to fund a program to facilitate extracurricular student speech if the program is viewpoint neutral. (Board of Regents v. Southworth, 120 S. Ct. 1346 (2000).)

The suit was brought by current and former students at the University of Wisconsin who objected to the university's mandatory activity fee, part of which was used to support extracurricular student speech. They alleged that the fee violated their First Amendment rights by requiring them to fund organizations that engage in political and ideological expression offensive to their beliefs.

The trial court granted the students summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and enjoined the university board of regents from using the fee to fund any student organization engaging in political or ideological speech.

Reversing, the Supreme Court cited case law addressing the constitutionality of mandatory fees in the context of a labor union and a state bar association. In these settings, the Court said, fees can be used to subsidize speech if the speech is germane to the purposes of the organization.

The six-justice majority found the standard of germane speech "unworkable" in the context of student speech at a university, particularly where the state undertakes to stimulate the whole universe of speech and ideas. "To insist upon asking what speech is germane would be contrary to the very goal the university seeks to pursue," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

But the university must protect its students' First Amendment rights, the Court emphasized. It held that the principal standard of protection for objecting students is the requirement of viewpoint neutrality. Under this standard, the Court said, a university may not prefer some viewpoints to others when it requires students to pay to support the extracurricular speech of other students.

In this case, the Court noted, the parties have stipulated that the program the university has developed to stimulate extracurricular student expression respects the principle of viewpoint neutrality. Thus, the Court concluded, the program is consistent with the First Amendment.