In 2000, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Southworth case, where students had challenged the way the University of Wisconsin was using their mandatory fees — specifically to bring mostly left-wing speakers to campus. Using mandatory fees for campus speakers did not entail a violation of the students’ First Amendment rights (unlike cases where labor unions use mandatory dues for political purposes, which the Court has held does entail a First Amendment violation) — but also stated that school officials had to be “viewpoint neutral” in their allocation of funds.

How is that working out? In today’s Pope Center piece, Southern Illinois University history professor Jonathan Bean says, “Not very well.” Citing his own experiences at SIU and others around the country, he argues that it is much harder to get approval for conservative or libertarian speakers than for left/progressive ones. Bean writes, “Some views are routinely favored while others are squelched.” That isn’t the least bit surprising, given the zealous mentality of most college officials, who think they’re saving the world and promoting “social justice” by promoting leftist speakers but disinviting (or never inviting at all) those on the right.

What to do about it? Bean suggests that advisers to student groups who want conservative and libertarian speakers should carefully document all the denials they receive to build a case that the school is violating the viewpoint neutrality obligation.

He also advocates setting up more campus debates so that there will not only be “balance” but something that students see all too infrequently — the actual clash of ideas.

In sum, don’t just complain about this unfair situation; fight back against it.