Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 310.0

529US1

Unit: $U39

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

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

235

Opinion of the Court

particular importance—its faculty, are subject to the First
Amendment analysis which controls in this case. Where the
University speaks, either in its own name through its regents
or ofﬁcers, or in myriad other ways through its diverse facul-
ties, the analysis likely would be altogether different. See
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173 (1991); Regan v. Taxation
With Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540 (1983). The
Court has not held, or suggested, that when the government
speaks the rules we have discussed come into play.

When the government speaks, for instance to promote its
own policies or to advance a particular idea, it is, in the end,
accountable to the electorate and the political process for its
If the citizenry objects, newly elected ofﬁcials
advocacy.
later could espouse some different or contrary position.
In
the instant case, the speech is not that of the University or
its agents.
It is not, furthermore, speech by an instructor
or a professor in the academic context, where principles ap-
plicable to government speech would have to be considered.
Cf. Rosenberger, supra, at 833 (discussing the discretion uni-
versities possess in deciding matters relating to their educa-
tional mission).

III

It remains to discuss the referendum aspect of the Univer-
sity’s program. While the record is not well developed on
the point, it appears that by majority vote of the student
body a given RSO may be funded or defunded.
It is unclear
to us what protection, if any, there is for viewpoint neutrality
in this part of the process. To the extent the referendum
substitutes majority determinations for viewpoint neutrality
it would undermine the constitutional protection the pro-
gram requires. The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is
that minority views are treated with the same respect as are
majority views. Access to a public forum, for instance, does
not depend upon majoritarian consent. That principle is
controlling here. A remand is necessary and appropriate to