Rusher is a third-year life sciences student.
By Casey Rusher
After two submissions regarding the stalled USSA fees
(“Voter-Approved
Fee Stalled by Regents,” Daily Bruin, News, Oct. 2 and
“Logic for overturning decision flawed,” Viewpoint,
Oct. 6) and little sign of the opposing point of view, it seems
evident that someone should present the other side of the
issue.
The reasoning for UC Deputy General Council Gary
Morrison’s initial disapproval is being misunderstood,
distorted and underrepresented. The legal concept of compelled
speech has not been introduced. If any mandatory fees are imposed
upon students and the revenues from such a forced fee are used to
promote, champion or otherwise advocate for a particular belief,
ideology or political position, it is known as compelled
speech.
A clear distinction must be made between mandatory and optional
fees, especially from a legal standpoint. When mandatory fees are
imposed, students are at the mercy of the discretion of the
organization receiving their money. For that organization to turn
around and use students’ money to advocate for a position
contrary to their own is exploitative. Using other people’s
money for your own political benefit is distasteful.
Rightfully, it appears that there is legal protection from
student body organizations engaging in this practice. As pointed
out in the original article, there is pending legislation regarding
this exact issue involving the University of Wisconsin. The Supreme
Court has determined thus far that if student body government
organizations are to collect money via mandatory fees for student
activities, that money must be distributed on a content-neutral
basis.
Morrison’s analysis of USSA, a lobby organization in
Washington, D.C. that represents students, suggested they engage in
advocacy that is not content-neutral. Such is the inherent nature
of advocacy.
As the deputy general counsel for the university, Morrison is a
risk manager for the institution. He must make decisions, using his
legal experience, that avoid putting the university in a position
where they are susceptible to lawsuits. I think this is one example
where it is best to trust Morrison’s legal expertise and
attempt to understand the potential legal ramifications of
compelled speech.
The issue is not about asking USSA “to promote both sides
of every argument” (Marcelle Richards, “Logic for
overturning decision flawed”); rather, it is about asking
them to use voluntary contributions to finance their political
activism, not compelled contributions.
I understand that USAC and some students may feel slighted by
voting for a policy and then having it overruled by a higher
authority, but one should not be surprised this can happen at the
university level. This scenario is analogous to the voters of
California creating a law by supporting a proposition and then
having it negated by a law of higher precedence, like
constitutional law.