Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia

515 U.S. 819 (1995)

Facts of the Case:

The University of Virginia provided student organizations with money for their printing costs. The money came from the University’s Student Activity Fee (SAF) which got its money from mandatory contributions from students. One of these organizations, which are known as Contracted Independent Organizations, was denied funding because it wanted to publish a Christian-oriented magazine. The University determined that Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia “primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality” as prohibited by SAF guidelines. The organization that wanted to publish the magazine claimed that its free speech rights were being violated.

Decision:

In a 5-4 decision the Court ruled that the University of Virginia inappropriately denied funding to Wide Awake Productions.

Majority Opinion: (Justice Kennedy)

In its Lamb’s Chapel decision the Court decided that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys. It is also impermissible for the government to favor one speaker over another or impose financial burdens on certain speakers because of their expression’s content. The Court also makes a distinction between content discrimination (which can be permissible) and viewpoint discrimination (which is impermissible). In this case, the University does not exclude religion as a subject matter for publications receiving funding. Rather, it selects for disfavored treatment those student journals with religious editorial viewpoints. In other words, the University barred the perspective not the general subject matter. It would be proper for the school to engage in viewpoint discrimination if it was the one doing the speaking. However, Wide Awake is an independent organization and contributes to the diversity of viewpoints that the SAF was meant to foster. The granting of funds does not violate the Establishment Clause because the money was not raised by taxes. The mandatory contributions to the SAF are held to be substantively different from tax contributions. The money is meant to reflect the diversity of the student body and is given to private contractors. The use of public facilities that was permitted in Lamb’s Chapel involves government expenditures for the upkeep of the facilities, in the same way that such funds are involved in this case. Finally, the student publication is neither a religious institution nor a religious organization.

Significance:

This decision extended the Lamb’s Chapel ruling that allowed public facilities to be used for religiously-motivated presentations. Following this decision, money could be given directly to the people conveying the message.

RealAudio of Oral Argument

[from http://oyez.nwu.edu].

Oral Argument.

Get the RealAudio Player from Progressive Networks to listen to the argument.