Āé¶¹“«Ć½IOS

Table of Contents

After Lawsuit, Eastern Michigan U. Agrees to Revise Unconstitutional Policy

In March, student organization Āé¶¹“«Ć½IOS for Life at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) enlisted Alliance Defending Freedom’s (ADF’s) help in  after it denied the group funding based on its ā€œpolitical or ideologicalā€ views. ADF announced yesterday that EMU settled the case late last month,  to fund all groups—including Āé¶¹“«Ć½IOS for Life—without consideration of the groups’ viewpoints.

ADF  the lawsuit’s origins on its website:

In February, Āé¶¹“«Ć½IOS for Life at Eastern Michigan University applied for student fee funding to host a pro-life display on campus called the Genocide Awareness Project, a traveling photo-mural exhibit... . EMU denied the request because they deemed the photos of the aborted babies and the event as too controversial, biased, and one-sided.

As ADF notes in its , EMU policy ā€œprohibit[s] student fee funding for ā€˜political or ideological’ activities of student organizations.ā€ According to the complaint, this policy was created in response to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision in , which the school interpreted as prohibiting the use of mandatory student activity fees for ā€œpolitical or ideological activities.ā€ But in Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s ruling and held that ā€œ[t]he First Amendment permits a public university to charge its students an activity fee used to fund a program to facilitate extracurricular student speech,provided that the program is viewpoint neutralā€ (emphasis added).

This clash between EMU’s policy and the First Amendment was exacerbated by the fact that the policy was selectively :

EMU officials had been inconsistent with their funding guidelines and had allocated the same funds to political and ideological speech discussing ā€œwelfare rights, women’s and abortion rights, religion, student activist training, and race-conscious causes, just to name a few.ā€

In initially denying Āé¶¹“«Ć½IOS for Life funding, EMU plainly violated the group’s right to freedom of speech by discriminating against these students based on their viewpoint.

EMU’s recent promise to fund Āé¶¹“«Ć½IOS for Life’s event despite its controversial nature is important not only to comply with the requirements of the First Amendment but also to further the purpose of the university. In Healy v. James (1972), the Supreme Court called the American college campus a ā€œmarketplace of ideas.ā€ In , the Court explained how viewpoint-neutral disbursement of mandatory student activity fees universities contributes to that marketplace: colleges use student activity fees to ā€œenhance the educational experience of its students by ... stimulating advocacy and debate on diverse points of view.ā€

This outcome marks a significant and necessary change to protect EMU students’ rights to freely express themselves on a wide range of topics, and we applaud this result.

Image: Bruce T. Halle Library at Eastern Michigan University - 

Recent Articles

Get the latest free speech news and analysis from Āé¶¹“«Ć½IOS.

Share