Justices Halt Some Uses of Mandatory Student Fees : Education: State Supreme Court says universities cannot assign fund for campus political causes. An appeal is likely.

A sharply divided state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that University of California students cannot be forced to pay fees to support campus political causes and government lobbying activities.

In a decision that could have broad impact, the court on a 5-2 vote upheld a constitutional challenge by former UC Berkeley students to the mandatory fees used widely in the UC and state university systems to fund campus political groups and other organizations.

“The constitutional guarantees of free speech and association do not permit the state to make speech a matter of compulsion and coercion,” Justice Edward A. Panelli wrote for the majority.

“As the present system of funding student activities has that effect, it cannot be continued without affording dissenting students an appropriate remedy.”

The court said the university could continue to freely use mandatory fees to support academic, cultural or recreational pursuits. But when the educational purpose of the group or cause is “merely incidental” to its political aims, students may withhold a proportionate amount from the mandatory fee, the court said.

In an unusual and bitter dissent, conservative Justice Armand Arabian, joined by liberal Justice Stanley Mosk, accused the majority of “a shocking ignorance of the university’s educational mission.”

Arabian said the university should be allowed to freely distribute mandatory fees to all campus groups--regardless of ideology--as long as the funds were allocated neutrally and not used for partisan political purposes or off-campus activities.

Saying the state court had “lost the light of wisdom,” Arabian urged UC officials and student leaders to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Anthony T. Caso of the Pacific Legal Foundation, an attorney for the students who brought the court challenge, hailed the ruling for “cementing the concept that people cannot be compelled to pay for other people’s political speech.”

Caso said that under the new court standards, mandatory fees could not be withheld from such academic groups as the Chess Club or the Physics Students Society but could be withdrawn from such groups as the Campus Abortion Rights Action League, the Gay and Lesbian Union and the campus National Organization for Women.

Mark Himelstein of San Francisco, lawyer for the UC Berkeley student government, condemned the decision and said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. “Basically, this changes the method by which public universities fund student government in this state,” he said.

Under the ruling, Himelstein said, students objecting to abortion could challenge the use of mandatory health service fees to support clinics offering abortion counseling.

Activity fees at UC Berkeley, now $21 a year, have been used since 1955 to partially fund student government activities and more than 150 campus groups, ranging from the Cal Ski Club to the Greenpeace chapter to the Marxist Young Spartacus League.

Groups receiving money have been allowed to take ideological stands but not to endorse candidates. Campus Young Democrat and Young Republican chapters do not receive funds on grounds they are “partisan political” organizations. Money has been used also for lobbying activities, such as supporting child-care legislation or lowering the drinking age.

The case before the justices was filed in 1979 by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of four UC Berkeley students. A year later, they were joined by 32 more students seeking a refund of that portion of the fees used for ideological activities.

The students contended that the 1st Amendment protection against forced speech and association should prevent them from being forced to pay for political activities they opposed.

Finally, As the students’ case languished in the courts, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 held in another case that mandatory attorney dues could not be used to support State Bar of California political and lobbying activities that were not related to the legal profession.

In Wednesday’s ruling, the state Supreme Court said that the wide discretion given the university in carrying out its educational mission must sometimes give way to the constitutional prohibition against government-forced political contributions.

Students who object to use of their fees for political or ideological activities are entitled to a refund, the court said, but there is no barrier to funding such activities with fees from students who do not object.