As the five-year segregated-fee case now known as Fry v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin nears a possible conclusion, questions have arisen concerning the implications for UW-Madison.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday addressing whether the UW System's process of distributing mandatory segregated fees to student organizations is done in a viewpoint-neutral fashion. If it is not, it would be unconstitutional to mandate that students pay fees under the current distribution system.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March 2000 that the current system was legal as long as it is viewpoint neutral. The current case stems from a motion filed by UW-Madison alumnus Scott Southworth and his lawyers following that decision to void a stipulation in the original case that the system was viewpoint neutral.
Southworth, who initiated the case in 1996, alleges that the system is biased and allows those on the Associated Students of Madison's Student Services Finance Committee too much freedom in deciding which student organizations should receive money.
\The system is not viewpoint neutral because it allows for unbridled discretion in the decision-making process,"" Southworth said.
ASM Chair Jessica Miller disagreed, however, stating that students on SSFC are not permitted to factor their opinions into their decisions.
""The people who make the decisions don't make them based on their views of the groups,"" Miller said. ""We do have an appeals process for those who do think they were discriminated against.""
Unlike students at many other universities, UW-Madison students have the power to allocate segregated fees. SSFC allocated fees to several student organizations earlier this fall, with ASM Student Council passing those approved budgets earlier this month. The Office of the Chancellor and the UW System Board of Regents will review those decisions early next year, though those decisions have no bearing on the current case.
Whatever the 7th Circuit rules, it may not be the final word on the subject.
ASM Rep. Jeff Pertl said he sees an appeal of the case to the U.S. Supreme Court as beneficial to the university's case.
""We have an even better chance in the Supreme Court than in the 7th [Circuit] Court,"" he said.
Southworth said he thought it is likely the case will end in the 7th Circuit Court.
He said he hoped for two possible outcomes to the legal battle.
""Ultimately I don't think this is a good system,"" Southworth said. ""I think they should stop doing it; they should make it voluntary.""
The other possibility would be to make the funding process completely unbiased.
He added, however, that he didn't want the ruling to order the university to take any specific steps.
""Don't tell them what that have to do; tell them what they can't do,"" Southworth said.
Pertl, however, said he doesn't think there is any other solution, other than stopping the distribution of segregated fees altogether, that would not spark additional lawsuits.
""Ultimately, no matter what system we have, they'll probably sue us again,"" Pertl said. ""As long as we still have access to funds there will still be lawsuits.""
Pertl said the lawsuit was a false attack on the system.
""The whole lawsuit is flawed in its premise and if we lose I think people will see that,"" he said.
