boyd@orstcs.UUCP (boyd) (01/20/86)
Currently a fight is brewing on the Oregon State University Campus over
how the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG) should be
funded. Currently, this group is funded through mandatory fees at a rate of
$45,000 a year. Since this group actively advances partisan political
issues off-campus before the states voters, is it legal that their funding
be part of the mandatory fee structure that students are required to pay in
order to attend the university? OSPIRG is not part of the University, the
administration or Student Government. It is a separate off-campus
corporation run on mandatory student fees plus money that OSPIRG collects
through canvassing (door-to-door solicitation).
I understand that a group of students at Rutgers university in New Jersey
successfully sued their university in federal court for collecting just such
a mandatory fee. They won apparently because the court felt that the
fee violated First Amendment rights. Anyone have any more information?
For those who don't know, PIRG's (Public Interest Research Groups) are an
idea of Ralph Nader's in which University students "tax" themselves to
promote off-campus issues in the "Public Interest". These groups are
structured in such a way as to squelch any students who have a dissenting
opinion of what the PIRG should be doing. In other words it is not
accountable to the students who pay for it. These groups seem to raise more
questions then they answer. For instance:
What is the "Public Interest"? -- I can't find a definition anywhere. It
appears to be a catch phrase.
Are Mandatory PIRG Fees Legal?
Responses to these questions would be appreciated as well as any other info
on these groups.
Thanks,
Scott Boydstu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) (01/24/86)
> > I understand that a group of students at Rutgers university in New Jersey > successfully sued their university in federal court for collecting just such > a mandatory fee. They won apparently because the court felt that the > fee violated First Amendment rights. Anyone have any more information? > When did thid happen? Hurrah! Hurrah! When my kids attended Rutgers in the 70s, they were pretty upset over this "voluntary" fee. Glad to see it finally happened. -- whuxl!stu16
boyd@orstcs.UUCP (boyd) (01/30/86)
Okay, the case is not a myth, I found it. It is Galda v. Rutgers completed on Oct. 10, 1985. Here are some interesting excerpts from the transcript: "State university students brought action challenging university's policy of funding independent outside organization that espoused and actively promoted political and ideological philosophy which the students opposed and did not wish to support." "[...]" "State university failed to show any compelling state interest that would justify overriding students' First Amendment rights, and thus could not compel students to pay a specified sum, albeit refundable to independent outside organization that espoused and actively promoted political and ideological philosophy which some students opposed and did not wish to support, despite university's contention that the fee was justified by educational benefits associated with participation in the organizations program, and absent evidence that the university, in its ordinary operations, was unable to offer students the opportunity to learn about environmental or consumer concerns or similar matters advocated by the organization." "[...]" "At trial plaintiffs presented evidence that PIRG, in at least some, if not a majority, of its activities is an entity devoted to political and ideological objectives." "[...]" "The educational advantages described in the testimony do not differ from those that might be obtained by working with, or for an independent organization such as the Republican or Democratic Party, or a clearly religous group which has undertaken an active and vigorous proselytizing program. As we have said, "it could not be seriously contended that student fees could be funneled to such a group."" "[...]" "Although the training PIRG members may receive is considerable, there can be no doubt that it is secondary to PIRG's stated objectives of a frankly ideological bent. To that extent the educational benefits are only "incidental" -arising from or accompanying the principle objectives -and subordinate to the group's. function of promoting its political and ideological aims." So the students won their case. It took them 6 years, but they won. Interesting stuff. Huh?
trb@haddock.UUCP (02/01/86)
When I went to Worcester Tech, MassPIRG started collecting fees ($2 per year or semester) as part of tuition (in 1977, I think). It was kind of funny to have this group, which we all perceived as anti-technology, collecting fees with our tuition. After a hue and cry from the students, the bursar's office refunded the fee on request (after they collected it). I don't know if MassPIRG still collects at Worcester Tech. Andrew Tannenbaum Interactive Boston, MA 617-247-1155
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (02/03/86)
In article <2900004@orstcs.UUCP> boyd@orstcs.UUCP (boyd) writes: >Currently a fight is brewing on the Oregon State University Campus over >how the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG) should be >funded. Currently, this group is funded through mandatory fees at a rate of >$45,000 a year. Since this group actively advances partisan political . . Are you sure the fees are mandatory, and not simply automatic unless the student actively elects not to pay? At various times over the last 10 years, at Colby College (Maine) and UMass PIRG has tried to stick a funding fee onto college tuition bills. PIRG simply claimed that any student who didnt want to pay would elect to remove the fee from the bill. Of course, I thought they were simply hoping to stick it to the parents who were paying the whole thing anyway ( :==> ). Darwin's Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates) {decvax,linus,ihnp4,ima,wjh12,wanginst}!bbncca!aoa!carl {wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!carl 54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201x356 "Selmer MarkVI, Otto Link 5*, and VanDoren Java Cut."
boyd@orstcs.UUCP (boyd) (02/07/86)
>Are you sure the fees are mandatory, and not simply automatic unless the >student actively elects not to pay? At various times over the last 10 years, Yes, here they are fully mandatory. No refund system. No negative check-off. No recourse. Scott Boyd Oregon State University
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (02/19/86)
In article <2900007@orstcs.UUCP> boyd@orstcs.UUCP (boyd) writes: >>Are you sure the fees are mandatory, and not simply automatic unless the >>student actively elects not to pay? At various times over the last 10 years, > >Yes, here they are fully mandatory. No refund system. No negative check-off. >No recourse. Isn't it wonderful that a group which claims to be working in the public interest is operating in an unethical manner to raise its funds? I always found this to be amusing, except that the people operating in my interest are so serious about it all that you'd think they saw the problem. (At UC Berkeley they would add the fee to your other fees, but you could decline to pay it by signing a form and turning it in.) However, in my discussion with CALPIRG at Berkeley, they always considered it justified because they got more money that way. Weird. I generally agree with their views, by the way. I think that their fundraising techniques are unethical. Which is why I always declined to pay their fee. Ken Arnold
garry@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Garry Wiegand) (02/24/86)
With respect to required "political" student fees - A quick opposing viewpoint: I have myself paid the U of Oregon PIRG fee. PIRG seems very politically innocuous, the student body as a group is pleased to spend money on it, and it appeared to be my duty to lend token support too since I did voluntarily join that body. Same principal as Homecoming fees. I'd really rather not have the government, in the form of the university administration or the courts, messing around with and second-guessing student assembly decisions for a matter as picayune as this. There is already a political method for redress - get the student assembly to change its mind. Courts are cruel weapons. Large numbers of human beings and large amounts of human effort are required to feed them. Are you really so self-righteous? garry wiegand garry%geology@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu RD 1, Trumansburg NY 14886
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (02/26/86)
> With respect to required "political" student fees - > > A quick opposing viewpoint: I have myself paid the U of Oregon PIRG > fee. PIRG seems very politically innocuous, the student body as a > group is pleased to spend money on it, and it appeared to be my duty > to lend token support too since I did voluntarily join that body. Same > principal as Homecoming fees. > Maybe Garry feels obligated, since he joined PIRG. However, most students don't join PIRG. And just because it is innocuous should not be a compelling reason to pay for it. There are many innocuous things in this world. > > Courts are cruel weapons. Large numbers of human beings and large amounts > of human effort are required to feed them. Are you really so self-righteous? > garry wiegand > This really appears to be an off the wall comment. What does this refer to? Mark Reina
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/28/86)
> With respect to required "political" student fees - > > A quick opposing viewpoint: I have myself paid the U of Oregon PIRG > fee. PIRG seems very politically innocuous, the student body as a > group is pleased to spend money on it, and it appeared to be my duty > to lend token support too since I did voluntarily join that body. Same > principal as Homecoming fees. > If they are so pleased to spend money on it, why not make the contribution voluntary? Or are you afraid they wouldn't be able to get any money from anyone. > I'd really rather not have the government, in the form of the university > administration or the courts, messing around with and second-guessing > student assembly decisions for a matter as picayune as this. There is > already a political method for redress - get the student assembly to > change its mind. > Like you don't want the courts second-guessing a state legislature on something as picayune as segregation? (And by the way, there are few elections in the United States that get the level of voter participation that a student assembly election gets.) > Courts are cruel weapons. Large numbers of human beings and large amounts > of human effort are required to feed them. Are you really so self-righteous? > > garry wiegand > garry%geology@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu > RD 1, Trumansburg NY 14886 The courts and the Constitution have frequently been the only protection for our civil liberties when the majority turned oppressive. (Remember the Oregon Schools Initiative of 1921?) Of course, if you believe in democracy, I doubt you believe in majority oppression.
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/13/86)
Answer: In New Jersey, no. Guy