Supreme Court rejects appeal in stude...

Supreme Court rejects appeal in student fee case

There are 17 comments on the USA Today story from Mar 8, 2011, titled Supreme Court rejects appeal in student fee case. In it, USA Today reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by the University of Wisconsin at Madison of a federal appeals court ruling that could require many public colleges and universities to permit the use of student fee money to pay for explicitly religious activities, including those involving prayer.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

Question Authority

Triangle, VA

#1 Mar 8, 2011
Seeing as it is the STUDENT'S money; they should be able to spend it any way they please so long as it's not destroying persons or property. Sorry religious instruction is NOT 'destructive' to a discerning individual which college age persons are SUPPOSED to be.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#2 Mar 8, 2011
Question Authority wrote:
Seeing as it is the STUDENT'S money; they should be able to spend it any way they please so long as it's not destroying persons or property. Sorry religious instruction is NOT 'destructive' to a discerning individual which college age persons are SUPPOSED to be.
It's their money until the check clears and then it's the Uof W money and the rules are different. You can't write a check and then claim it's you money. That is fraud, or perhaps daydreaming.
Eleanor

Vernon Hills, IL

#3 Mar 9, 2011
"Separation of church and state"

The 1st ammendment to the constitution defines it as " "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

So it really ISN'T "separation of church and state"; it is that the government can't ESTABLISH a specific religion or prevent others from their own religion"

"Separation of church and state" therefore is a a very misleading statement.
Question Authority

Triangle, VA

#4 Mar 9, 2011
laojim wrote:
<quoted text>
It's their money until the check clears and then it's the Uof W money and the rules are different. You can't write a check and then claim it's you money. That is fraud, or perhaps daydreaming.
Excuse me, but there is a written contract in the form of a class schedule and receipt when people apply to a college where they are SUPPOSED to get what they pay for. This NONSENSE of it being a one way deal, you pay me and take your chances because it's MINE now is a myth. Taxpayers PAY to have their children EDUCATED so that they can carry on business in this world NOT to be indoctrinated into the latest social agenda.

Unless you can LIVE UP TO the expectation of the payee, YOU are committing fraud. Let's not get it backwards here. I for one STRONGLY object to paying for a second rate education.
Question Authority

Triangle, VA

#5 Mar 9, 2011
Question Authority wrote:
Seeing as it is the STUDENT'S money; they should be able to spend it any way they please so long as it's not destroying persons or property. Sorry religious instruction is NOT 'destructive' to a discerning individual which college age persons are SUPPOSED to be.
I noticed this comment was marked "clueless".

Any monies that are given an institution for a specific reason may have changed hands, BUT it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the one who keeps the funds in trust for use BY said individuals to spend it wisely AS IS PROMISED.

Students buy books. Once the student HAS the books they PAY for, the funds that paid for the book belong to the sellers.

Student FEES are NOT such a commodity. They are held in common FOR the purpose that the students intend. If a student does not agree with how the 'fees' are supposed to be spent, he/she should be free NOT to pay for it.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#6 Mar 9, 2011
Question Authority wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, but there is a written contract in the form of a class schedule and receipt when people apply to a college where they are SUPPOSED to get what they pay for. This NONSENSE of it being a one way deal, you pay me and take your chances because it's MINE now is a myth. Taxpayers PAY to have their children EDUCATED so that they can carry on business in this world NOT to be indoctrinated into the latest social agenda.
Unless you can LIVE UP TO the expectation of the payee, YOU are committing fraud. Let's not get it backwards here. I for one STRONGLY object to paying for a second rate education.
Completely irrelevant nonsense.
You pay for the opportunity to earn the marks the lead to your graduation and degree. You can't just write a check and then cry that you've paid so you deserve this and that. As my Italian professor used to say, "Ifa you no study, you flunk. Eh?"

Taxpayers do not pay school taxes to educate their children. They pay to try to ensure that all children are educated and if one family has some particular religious idea that isn't met by the school, too bad. Your school taxes do not educate your children. Your school taxes pay for all children.

Nobody is required to live up to your expectations, which might be reasonable and might be unreasonable, foolish, or self serving.

This is how the monetary system works. I have five dollars. I give you two. Those two dollars are yours. I no longer have any control of how those two dollars are used because they are yours. In the same way, you write a check to the school. The school becomes the one who has those dollars, not you. They will spend those dollars as they see fit.

You have no claim on a dollar just because it briefly was in your account at the bank.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#7 Mar 9, 2011
Question Authority wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed this comment was marked "clueless".
Any monies that are given an institution for a specific reason may have changed hands, BUT it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the one who keeps the funds in trust for use BY said individuals to spend it wisely AS IS PROMISED.
Students buy books. Once the student HAS the books they PAY for, the funds that paid for the book belong to the sellers.
Student FEES are NOT such a commodity. They are held in common FOR the purpose that the students intend. If a student does not agree with how the 'fees' are supposed to be spent, he/she should be free NOT to pay for it.
I never heard of such a thing.

If you don't pay the fees, the tuition, the other charges, you can take your money elsewhere. You are misinformed about the fees. I, for example, one paid a "lab fee" which purchased chemicals and equipment for the lab whether I agreed with the purchase or not. I once got stuck for an "activity fee" which apparently went to buy stuff for jocks. I don't recall ever paying a fee that was "held in common" for what we, the 32,000 undergrads at the state university wanted. Sorry you misunderstood.
Question Authority

Triangle, VA

#8 Mar 9, 2011
laojim wrote:
<quoted text>
Completely irrelevant nonsense.
You pay for the opportunity to earn the marks the lead to your graduation and degree. You can't just write a check and then cry that you've paid so you deserve this and that. As my Italian professor used to say, "Ifa you no study, you flunk. Eh?"
Taxpayers do not pay school taxes to educate their children. They pay to try to ensure that all children are educated and if one family has some particular religious idea that isn't met by the school, too bad. Your school taxes do not educate your children. Your school taxes pay for all children.
Nobody is required to live up to your expectations, which might be reasonable and might be unreasonable, foolish, or self serving.
This is how the monetary system works. I have five dollars. I give you two. Those two dollars are yours. I no longer have any control of how those two dollars are used because they are yours. In the same way, you write a check to the school. The school becomes the one who has those dollars, not you. They will spend those dollars as they see fit.
You have no claim on a dollar just because it briefly was in your account at the bank.
Gad, are all academia as clueless as you? I didn't SAY the recipient of funds would be responsible for the OUTCOME of the student, I SAID it should be used AS IT IS EXPECTED. You twisted my words.

I challenge you to go about your neighborhood and ask THEM what they think their education tax dollars are for. You will only get YOUR "all children" as a secondary answer AND in some cases you will get 'except for..'.

YOUR attitude is the reason that many Americans are FED UP with the current public education system. Arrogant ass is the best way to describe your state.
Question Authority

Triangle, VA

#9 Mar 9, 2011
laojim wrote:
<quoted text>
I never heard of such a thing.
If you don't pay the fees, the tuition, the other charges, you can take your money elsewhere. You are misinformed about the fees. I, for example, one paid a "lab fee" which purchased chemicals and equipment for the lab whether I agreed with the purchase or not. I once got stuck for an "activity fee" which apparently went to buy stuff for jocks. I don't recall ever paying a fee that was "held in common" for what we, the 32,000 undergrads at the state university wanted. Sorry you misunderstood.
Again, you used an example that doesn't fit. Of course you pay the fee for a lab if you take the course, ass. I was SPEAKING of "activity fees".
Question Authority

Triangle, VA

#10 Mar 9, 2011
Besides, why should I have to pay for the second rate education of OTHER students that I consider anathema for mine?

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#11 Mar 9, 2011
It should fail because it's viewpoint discrimination. If students can have organizations based on politics or advocy they get to have religious clubs.
The Fourth Estate

Ponte Vedra, FL

#12 Mar 9, 2011
Perhaps the Appeals Court's ruling was based on the thinking that since religions have their slogan plastered all over the money, it already belongs to them.

Can anyone cite a time in history when religion has not caused more problems than it has solved?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#13 Mar 9, 2011
Question Authority wrote:
<quoted text>
Gad, are all academia as clueless as you? I didn't SAY the recipient of funds would be responsible for the OUTCOME of the student, I SAID it should be used AS IT IS EXPECTED. You twisted my words.
I challenge you to go about your neighborhood and ask THEM what they think their education tax dollars are for. You will only get YOUR "all children" as a secondary answer AND in some cases you will get 'except for..'.
YOUR attitude is the reason that many Americans are FED UP with the current public education system. Arrogant ass is the best way to describe your state.
You quibble but make no point. In this case "is" or "as if" makes no difference. The point is that the money, once given to the school, is theirs to spend as they think best and you no longer have control.

Going around asking your neighbors is irrelevant. The legislature understands that funds are to be provided for the education of the young and everyone, or nearly so, is taxed for the education of the young. If you don't think that makes any difference you might read Charles Dickens' story "A Christmas Carol."

I tell you the truth and you get up on your high horse and start calling me names. You have not thought through the matters you comment on and you want to blame me. I think you are in need of a little education on how this country works, since you obviously don't understand it now.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#14 Mar 9, 2011
Question Authority wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you used an example that doesn't fit. Of course you pay the fee for a lab if you take the course, ass. I was SPEAKING of "activity fees".
Activity fee is a name given to a variety of things and may not give you any say as to how they are spent. perhaps there is some student input for some school's activity fee but you will find no such input at others. Often it is just a sort of slush fund for the athletic department. It isn't, just because of the name, any sort of democratic fund. I think that at some schools it just goes into the general fund, and is a fee that nobody questions much because they like activities. It can be a number of different things, but it is never a fund that you can channel to your secular church activities when it is at a public institution.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#15 Mar 9, 2011
RedSonja2000 wrote:
It should fail because it's viewpoint discrimination. If students can have organizations based on politics or advocy they get to have religious clubs.
No, because there is a long history of the churches trying to get involved with the schools. There is a long history of supreme court rulings on this point and the great majority of them are against any activity that tends to create some form entanglement with the churches. The political parties do not have this long history and the courts have not told them to keep out of the schools time and again.
Question Authority

Triangle, VA

#16 Mar 9, 2011
The Fourth Estate wrote:
Perhaps the Appeals Court's ruling was based on the thinking that since religions have their slogan plastered all over the money, it already belongs to them.
Can anyone cite a time in history when religion has not caused more problems than it has solved?
Irrelevant. A college is SUPPOSED to be an institution of higher learning AND thinking for oneself. If there were no holds barred on learning, people would become smarter on their own. Forensics. Its definition is more than just picking up after a crime scene, it's learning how to debate and share information. You can't do an adequate job of either if you define what can be talked about and what can't. Further more, if you try to define it, it violates free speech.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#17 Mar 9, 2011
Question Authority wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. A college is SUPPOSED to be an institution of higher learning AND thinking for oneself. If there were no holds barred on learning, people would become smarter on their own. Forensics. Its definition is more than just picking up after a crime scene, it's learning how to debate and share information. You can't do an adequate job of either if you define what can be talked about and what can't. Further more, if you try to define it, it violates free speech.
Nobody is going to stop you from talking about religious matters when it is relevant, but you can't lead prayers or organize public observances of religious customs at a public school. Religion comes up in regard to all kinds of things historical and intellectual. It is a simple distinction. You can, for example, write about the influence of Islam on European history and you can talk about Chagall's paintings of the pogroms in Russia, but you can't have time set aside for prayers, Christian, Jewish or other.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sexual orientation Title VII cases work way tow... 23 hr Wondering 16
News DOJ asks to keep 'Making a Murderer' inmate loc... Jun '17 CodeTalker 1
News Chicago court stays deportation of pizza worker... May '17 Geezer 1
News Ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich files another appeal on... May '17 online reality bu... 1
News Ex-Illinois Governor Blagojevich's 14-year pris... Apr '17 tomin cali 2
News Appeals court denies Blagojevich request for 3r... Apr '17 CodeTalker 2
News US court, again, takes up issue of Blagojevich ... Apr '17 okimar 1
More from around the web