Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 318

529US1

Unit: $U39

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

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

243

Souter, J., concurring in judgment

offensive viewpoints in ways that cannot be thought consti-
tutionally objectionable unless one is prepared to deny the
University its choice over what to teach. No one disputes
that some fraction of students’ tuition payments may be used
for course offerings that are ideologically offensive to some
students, and for paying professors who say things in the
university forum that are radically at odds with the politics
of particular students. Least of all does anyone claim that
the University is somehow required to offer a spectrum of
courses to satisfy a viewpoint neutrality requirement. See
Rosenberger, supra, at 892–893, and nn. 11–12 (Souter, J.,
dissenting). The University need not provide junior years
abroad in North Korea as well as France, instruct in the
theory of plutocracy as well as democracy, or teach Nietzsche
as well as St. Thomas. Since uses of tuition payments (not
optional for anyone who wishes to stay in college) may fund
offensive speech far more obviously than the student activity
fee does, it is difﬁcult to see how the activity fee could pre-
sent a stronger argument for a refund.

In sum, I see no basis to provide relief from the scheme
being administered, would go no further, and respectfully
concur in the judgment.