Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 299

529US1

Unit: $U39

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

224

BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF WIS. SYSTEM
v. SOUTHWORTH
Opinion of the Court

by the ASM. SGAF moneys may be issued to support an
RSO’s operations and events, as well as travel expenses “cen-
tral to the purpose of the organization.”
Id., at 18. As an
alternative, an RSO can apply for funding from the General
Student Services Fund (GSSF), administered through the
ASM’s ﬁnance committee. During the 1995–1996 academic
year, 15 RSO’s received GSSF funding. These RSO’s in-
cluded a campus tutoring center, the student radio station, a
student environmental group, a gay and bisexual student
center, a community legal ofﬁce, an AIDS support network,
a campus women’s center, and the Wisconsin Student Public
Interest Research Group (WISPIRG).
Id., at 16–17. The
University acknowledges that, in addition to providing cam-
pus services (e. g., tutoring and counseling), the GSSF-funded
RSO’s engage in political and ideological expression. Brief
for Petitioner 10.

The GSSF, as well as the SGAF, consists of moneys origi-
nating in the allocable portion of the mandatory fee. The
parties have stipulated that, with respect to SGAF and
GSSF funding, “[t]he process for reviewing and approving
allocations for funding is administered in a viewpoint-neutral
fashion,” id., at 14–15, and that the University does not use
the fee program for “advocating a particular point of view.”
Id., at 39.

A student referendum provides a third means for an RSO
to obtain funding.
Id., at 16. While the record is sparse on
this feature of the University’s program, the parties inform
us that the student body can vote either to approve or to
disapprove an assessment for a particular RSO. One refer-
endum resulted in an allocation of $45,000 to WISPIRG dur-
ing the 1995–1996 academic year. At oral argument, counsel
for the University acknowledged that a referendum could
also operate to defund an RSO or to veto a funding decision
of the ASM.
In October 1996, for example, the student body
voted to terminate funding to a national student organization
Id., at 215. Both parties
to which the University belonged.