Guidance From UCLA Legal Affairs on Allocating Compulsory Student Fee-Based

Funds
The systemwide Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations and Students
(PACAOS) provides clear guidance on student governments allocation of
compulsory student fees, and requires viewpoint neutrality in these funding
decisions. For example:
PACAOS 60 Policy on Student Governments
61.10 Authority, Responsibility, and Purposes: To provide a forum for
the discussion of issues and ideas of interest, importance, and/or concern to
student; To provide financial and other tangible support for student
activities and organizations on a viewpoint-neutral basis, in order to foster a
sense of community and to further discussion among students of the
broadest range of ideas.
PACAOS 80 Policy on Compulsory Campus-Based Student Fees
86.00 Support for Registered Campus Organizations and Related
Programs and Activities From Compulsory Campus-Based Student
Fees. The process for making reallocations must be based solely on
viewpoint-neutral criteria.
86.20 The Universitys Educational Purposes. Reallocation of fees are
(1) to provide opportunities for the educational benefits that derive from
participation in extracurricular programs and activities; and (2) to stimulate
on-campus discussion and debate on a wide range of issues from a variety of
viewpoints. Decisions must be made without regard to the viewpoint of
the organization.
86.30
Campus Procedures and Criteria to Assure Viewpoint
Neutrality. Campuses should ensure that student governments maintain
procedures and criteria for supporting organizations from fees that are
viewpoint-neutral. Appropriate criteria may include: the objectively
documented organizational needs of the organization based on
membership size; its office or equipment requirements; the extent of financial
support [the organization] receives from other sources; or the production
costs associated with a particular event the [organization] typically
sponsors. Such sponsored events supported in whole or in part by
compulsory campus-based fees] need not avoid controversial political,
religious, or ideological content, subject to the understanding that under
University policy campuses have a responsibility to assure an ongoing
opportunity for the expression of a variety of viewpoints. The criteria should
be publicize[d] widely and regularly. Further, 86.34 provides that speakers
sponsored by organizations, over time should stimulate on-campus
discussion and debate from a wide range of viewpoints on a variety of
issues.

These policies are consistent with First Amendment law. The question of content
discrimination that may be permitted is complicated and may be difficult to
distinguish from viewpoint discrimination. As one court has noted, [t]he Supreme
Court is not always clear about the difference; in Rosenberger it said that viewpoint
discrimination is just an egregious form of content discrimination. Badger Catholic,
Inc. v. Walsh, 620 F.3d 775, 789 (7th Cir. 2010)(internal quotations omitted).