Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 312

529US1

Unit: $U39

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

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

237

Souter, J., concurring in judgment

The ﬁrst comprises First Amendment and related cases
grouped under the umbrella of academic freedom.3 Such
law might be implicated by the University’s proffered ration-
ale, that the grant scheme funded by the student activity
fee is an integral element in the discharge of its educational
mission. App. 253 (excerpt from Dean of Students Ofﬁce
Student Organization Handbook noting that the activities
of student groups constitute a “ ‘second curriculum’ ”); id.,
at 41, 42–44 (statement of Associate Dean of Students of
the UW-Madison noting academic importance of funding
scheme); see also ante, at 233. Our understanding of aca-
demic freedom has included not merely liberty from re-
straints on thought, expression, and association in the acad-
emy, but also the idea that universities and schools should
have the freedom to make decisions about how and what to
teach.
In Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U. S. 214
(1985), we recognized these related conceptions: “Academic
freedom thrives not only on the independent and uninhibited
exchange of ideas among teachers and students, but also, and
somewhat inconsistently, on autonomous decisionmaking by
Id., at 226, n. 12 (citations omitted).
the academy itself.”
Some of the opinions in our books emphasize broad concep-
tions of academic freedom that if accepted by the Court
might seem to clothe the University with an immunity to any
challenge to regulations made or obligations imposed in the
discharge of its educational mission. So, in Sweezy v. New
Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234 (1957), Justice Frankfurter, concur-
ring in the result and joined by Justice Harlan, explained the

15.
If viewpoint neutrality is a sufﬁcient condition, the majority could
uphold the scheme here on that limited ground without deciding whether
it is a necessary one.

3 We have long recognized the constitutional importance of academic
freedom. See Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 195 (1952) (Frank-
furter, J., concurring); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 250 (1957)
(plurality opinion); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 487 (1960); Keyishian
v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U. S. 589, 603 (1967).