Opinion ID: 779470
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Impermissible Viewpoint-Based Criteria

Text: 153 While we conclude that the University's Funding Standards, as a whole, substantially limit the discretion of the SSFC and the ASM Finance Committee as to GSSF grants and SGAF operation and event grants, a few of the criteria relied upon by the University are related to the RSO's speech or viewpoint, and thus are improperly considered by the student government. Before discussing the criteria of concern, however, we turn to Forsyth, which provides the necessary context for this issue. 154 In Forsyth, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a parade-permit ordinance that assessed a fee on the organization seeking a permit to cover the cost of necessary and reasonable protection of persons participating in or observing said ... activit[y]. 505 U.S. at 134, 112 S.Ct. 2395. The Court held that consideration of this factor was invalid because it unconstitutionally tied the amount of the fee to the content of the speech: In order to assess accurately the cost of security for parade participants, the administrator must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed, estimate the response of others to that content, and judge the number of police necessary to meet that response. Id. at 134, 112 S.Ct. 2395. 155 This court applied Forsyth in Chicago Acorn v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Auth., 150 F.3d 695 (7th Cir.1998). In Chicago Acorn, a group seeking to distribute leaflets and hold a rally on Navy Pier was denied a fee waiver even though the City had waived the fee for the Democratic Party's National Convention. The City justified its action by explaining that it was not favoring the speech of the Democratic Party, but rather was motivated by purely economical concerns; its policy is to waive fees for users who will generate large favorable publicity. Id. at 699. Applying Forsyth, we held that while the City's intent may have been innocent, the discriminatory effect on speech was too great to be permitted, id. at 701, because a favorable publicity criterion is especially likely to have political consequences, since the only political users of the pier who will generate large favorable publicity are respectable, popular politicians and respected, well—established political groups; pariahs need not apply. Id. at 699. Accordingly, we concluded that in deciding whether to waive the fee, Navy Pier could not consider whether the event would generate positive publicity. Id. at 699. 156 Both Forsyth and Chicago Acorn illustrate that in determining access to a forum the criteria considered must be unrelated to the content of the speech and must not have the effect of excluding unpopular or minority viewpoints. With this in mind, we return then to the Funding Standards. One of those standards requires an RSO to have received an ASM grant for at least two years in order to qualify for a GSSF grant. Another criteria considers the number of years that the student group has existed. Moreover, during oral argument, the University indicated that in determining grant amounts, the SSFC and the ASM Finance Committee consider, among other things, the amount the organization received in previous years as a benchmark for current grants. The Finance Committee's Rules of Procedure also seem to take into account past funding decisions by providing as one consideration the success of past similar events. Similarly, in its brief on appeal, the University contends that a group in existence for ten years would have a reasonable basis for objecting to a funding decision that treated groups with comparable requests more favorably, which had been around a much shorter time. 157 Consideration of the length of time that an RSO has been in existence and the amount of funding the RSO received in prior years cannot be said to be unrelated to viewpoint. First, until recently, the University prohibited funding of [a]ctivities which [were] politically partisan or religious in nature. Thus, organizations espousing partisan political or religious viewpoints are at a funding disadvantage compared to other viewpoints. Second, until recently there were no procedures designed to assure the distribution of funds in a viewpoint-neutral manner. 158 Thus, to the extent that the current funding decisions are based on the length of time an organization has been in existence, or the amount of funding that the RSO received in the past, the current decisions depend in part on viewpoint-based decisions of the past. This is especially true in the context of the funding of WISPIRG, which in the past received its funding from the constitutionally deficient student referendum mechanism. While the University eliminated the funding of WISPIRG through a referendum, by basing current funding on past funding, the elimination of the referendum did little to rectify the constitutional defect of the referendum. In fact, at oral argument the University stated that WISPIRG is actually receiving slightly more in funding now. In other words, viewpoint discrimination from past years has been institutionalized into the current system. 159 Moreover, consideration of the length of time an organization has been in existence and the amount of funding an organization has received in the past discriminates against less traditional viewpoints. As we said in Chicago Acorn, the government may not discriminate in the terms of access to these facilities in favor of established parties and popular politicians.... Id. at 699. This is because the First Amendment prohibits treating speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 394, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) (internal citation omitted). See also, Rosenberger 515 U.S. at 828, 115 S.Ct. 2510 (In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another.). Yet under the current funding system, historically popular viewpoints are at an advantage compared with newer viewpoints. Accordingly, we conclude that the University cannot consider the length of time an RSO has been in existence, nor the amount of past funding the organization has received, in assessing current funding allocations as those criteria are improperly related to the content of the speech. 12 160 A similar concern exists to the extent the Funding Standards require or allow the SSFC and the ASM Finance Committee to consider the number of students benefitting from the speech. Because the First Amendment requires that minority views are treated with the same respect as are majority views, Southworth, 529 U.S. at 235, 120 S.Ct. 1346, the University cannot use the popularity of the speech as a factor in determining funding. That does not mean that the University can never consider the number of students involved because some variable expenses will legitimately depend on this factor, such as the amount of money needed for refreshments or programs distributed to attendees. Or, as illustrated above, the number of students interested in an event may necessitate the renting of a larger space, and in this circumstance it is legitimate to consider the size of the attending audience. Because the University may in limited circumstances consider the number of students involved or benefitted, such criteria are not facially invalid, but improper consideration of the popularity of the speech may justify an as-applied challenge. 161 Finally, before closing we note that our discussion in no way should suggest that the other Funding Standards or other aspects of the mandatory student fee system are unrelated to the content of the speech or otherwise facially valid. The plaintiffs challenge the unbridled discretion of those standards, and that is the issue before this court; however, because the University improperly asserts that longevity and past funding awards properly limit the student government's discretion, that too has become an issue on appeal. Other details of the Funding Standards and the application of those standards are not currently at issue.