Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 304.0

529US1

Unit: $U39

[09-26-01 13:21:31] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 217 (2000)

229

Opinion of the Court

II

It is inevitable that government will adopt and pursue pro-
grams and policies within its constitutional powers but which
nevertheless are contrary to the profound beliefs and sincere
convictions of some of its citizens. The government, as a
general rule, may support valid programs and policies by
taxes or other exactions binding on protesting parties.
Within this broader principle it seems inevitable that funds
raised by the government will be spent for speech and other
expression to advocate and defend its own policies. See,
e. g., Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173 (1991); Regan v. Taxa-
tion With Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540, 548–549
(1983). The case we decide here, however, does not raise
the issue of the government’s right, or, to be more speciﬁc,
the state-controlled University’s right, to use its own funds
to advance a particular message. The University’s whole
justiﬁcation for fostering the challenged expression is that it
springs from the initiative of the students, who alone give it
purpose and content in the course of their extracurricular
endeavors.

The University having disclaimed that the speech is its
own, we do not reach the question whether traditional politi-
cal controls to ensure responsible government action would
be sufﬁcient to overcome First Amendment objections and
to allow the challenged program under the principle that the
government can speak for itself.
If the challenged speech
here were ﬁnanced by tuition dollars and the University and
its ofﬁcials were responsible for its content, the case might
be evaluated on the premise that the government itself is the
speaker. That is not the case before us.

The University of Wisconsin exacts the fee at issue for the
sole purpose of facilitating the free and open exchange of
ideas by, and among, its students. We conclude the object-
ing students may insist upon certain safeguards with respect
to the expressive activities which they are required to sup-
port. Our public forum cases are instructive here by close