Justice David H. Souter was joined by justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer in writing the dissenting opinion on the neutrality requirement. Charles Goetzl, a student affairs counselor at CSU Hayward for 20 years, provided an analogy to help understand the Supreme Court's decision upholding the use of mandatory fees at public colleges and universities. On the other side, the University of Wisconsin argued that in a college atmosphere with differing viewpoints, all groups are entitled to support. Hayward's Goetzl, said the plaintiff's position begs a point. Goetzl said the whole case speaks to the concept of participatory democracy.
Student associations exists to benefit all students on campus.
If students don't like the way their money is spent, there are plenty of mechanisms in the system to make their views count, such as committees, open forums and other vehicles. In Wednesday's ruling, one aspect of the mandatory fee case, was not upheld. The court said allowing a majority vote of students to cancel out a university's commitment to neutrality in allocating student fee-based funds would be unconstitutional. Commenting on the Supreme Court's decision which wasn't expected until late spring, SJSU political science Professor James Brent said the decision is a great one because a university is a place where campus organizations ought to be encouraged to engage in dialogue. Alex Arteaga, Director of Government Relations for the California State Student Association, said his staff in Sacramento heard about the pivotal Supreme Court decision when it broke, just before noon, Wednesday.