果冻传媒app官方

Table of Contents

FIREanalysis: Rutgers violated the Constitution by defunding student newspaper

The Daily Targum lost more than $500,000 in funding following an April referendum. 果冻传媒app官方's analysis reveals the referendum was unconstitutional. (WABC-TV)

  • Student rights aren鈥檛 subject to popular vote
  • Defunding followed campaign by student group criticized by the newspaper

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J., June 3, 2019 鈥 Rutgers University鈥檚 student newspaper, the award-winning , lost its funding despite winning the overall support of student voters in an April referendum. But an analysis by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that the Rutgers policy that defunded the newspaper is unconstitutional in at least four ways. FIRE today called on Rutgers to reverse course, fund The Daily Targum, and reform its unconstitutional funding policy.

TAKE ACTION: TELL RUTGERS TO RESTORE FUNDING TO THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER

Though 68% of voting students supported continuing to fund The Daily Targum, it fell short of receiving the required thumbs-up from at least a quarter of the overall student population. Only about a quarter of Rutgers students voted on the ballot measure, which is held every three years.

Since 2017, the Rutgers University Conservative Union has led a #DefundTheTargum campaign. The group, which that it aimed 鈥渘ot to destroy the paper, but to give more freedom and more choice鈥 to students, had run-ins with the Targum in recent years. Group leaders have complained that the newspaper printed 鈥淔ake News鈥 after the Targum revealing that a member of the group crafted flyers nearly identical to those created by American Vanguard, a white supremacist group.

Melissa Hayes, an alumni member of The Daily Targum鈥檚 Board of Trustees, that the vote means a loss for the newspaper of around $540,000 a year.

鈥淭he university must immediately reverse course and implement a funding process that doesn鈥檛 subject student newspapers, or any other student organization, to layer upon layer of impermissible viewpoint discrimination,鈥 said 果冻传媒app官方鈥檚 Adam Goldstein, author of today鈥檚 letter.

The referendum itself, and the system that determines a student group鈥檚 eligibility for a funding referendum, are unconstitutional in four ways:

  1. Court precedents forbid public colleges from distributing student activity fees by referenda. The Supreme Court has said, under the First Amendment, the power to impose a mandatory student activity fee is tied to the obligation to distribute that fee in a viewpoint-neutral way. A referendum cannot be viewpoint-neutral because, as the Supreme Court has held in another student fee funding case, 鈥淸a]ccess to a public forum 鈥 does not depend upon majoritarian consent.鈥  
  2. The referendum procedure is apparently unavailable to belief-based groups, such as political and religious organizations.
  3. Under the policy, a committee of the University Senate is charged with determining whether the 鈥渆ducational value of the organization justifies the proposed investment.鈥 While an inquiry into 鈥渆ducational value鈥 鈥 which the Rutgers policy leaves undefined 鈥 may be a lawful component of a viewpoint-neutral standard, it does not, standing alone, provide adequate guidance to decision-makers and thus allows for biased funding determinations.
  4. The university president has unfettered power to unilaterally approve or deny a student group鈥檚 request for a referendum, including for viewpoint-discriminatory reasons.

鈥淲hether the conservative group鈥檚 campaign changed a single vote is irrelevant, as the mere establishment of the voting system is unconstitutional even if the Targum won every vote,鈥 Goldstein said. 鈥淚f a popular vote was a lawful method of defunding a student group, many voices 鈥 almost assuredly conservative ones included 鈥 would be silenced. Rutgers cannot permit any student group to lose funding because someone didn鈥檛 like what they published, and that鈥檚 all a referendum is: a heckler鈥檚 veto with extra steps.鈥

Today, FIRE is asking Rutgers to comply with its obligations under the First Amendment by discontinuing use of the unconstitutional referendum and immediately restoring funding to The Daily Targum. Rutgers cannot fulfill its obligation to respect the constitutional rights of its students by putting those rights to a popular vote.

FIRE is committed to using all the resources at our disposal to ensure student journalists at Rutgers are not silenced by an unconstitutional funding system. FIREstands ready to provide guidance to Rutgers 鈥 or any university or college 鈥 on what policies would comply with the Constitution.

TAKE ACTION: TELL RUTGERS TO RESTORE FUNDING TO THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at America鈥檚 colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience 鈥 the essential qualities of liberty.

CONTACT:

Daniel Burnett, Assistant Director of Communications, 果冻传媒app官方: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

TELL RUTGERS TO RESTORE FUNDING TO THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER

 

Recent Articles

FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share