Duquesne Law Review
Abstract
Taking money from a person to support political and ideological projects with which that person disagrees is, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "sinful and tyrannical." Public universities are meddling with sin and tyranny by compelling some students to pay mandatory student activity fees in support of political and ideological activities with which those students disagree. This Article provides separate legal and historical backgrounds for both public union dues and fees and the more-recent public university student activity fees to ultimately propose a constitutional system congruent with Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, and its impact on Board of Regents v. Southworth by overruling Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. This Article contends that a compelled student fee system is not a limited public forum, debunks four approaches to resolving the constitutional issue, and then proposes a constitutional solution that reconciles Southworth with Janus and recommends a consistent standard for both union fees and student activity fees. That constitutional solution requires a knowing, voluntary, and intentional choice to pay the fees. Students must affirmatively waive their right not to speak and opt in to pay the fee. Public universities should not force students to support ideas and opinions that they would not otherwise support, simply through their enrollment at the university, with compelled student activity fees. Compelled speech in any form violates a student's First Amendment rights.
First Page
124
Recommended Citation
Falco A. Muscante II,
Talk Should Be Cheap: The Supreme Court Has Spoken on Compelled Fees, but Universities Are Not Listening,
61
Duq. L. Rev.
124
(2023).
Available at:
https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol61/iss1/10