Iowa State Students Forced to Fund Conservative Group Under New Law

We recently discussed how faculty and administrators at schools like the University of Wisconsin have opposed polling students about the loss of free speech out of fear that the results could be used to pass new legislation supporting viewpoint diversity. Iowa recently passed just such legislation and it has produced its first change in funding. The Young Americans for Freedom chapter at Iowa State University reluctantly was granted funding from the student government after university legal counsel informed them that they could not withhold financial support to the conservative group.

The grant was only $500 but, according to reports, the students only approved the grant when they were told that a refusal might jeopardize other funding.

The Iowa State Daily reported that students like United Residents of Off-Campus Senator Victoria Fillipi, a junior majoring in political science, objected to any funding for the conservative group and asked “How long are we going to continue funding an organization that’s disrespectful and demeaning toward a huge population of Iowa State University’s campus?”

The student government’s Chief of Staff and President-elect Jacob Ludwig informed the student representatives that the university’s attorney advised them that they could not withhold the funding.

He was referring to H.J. 1210.that Governor Kim Reynolds signed on May 20th. That law states in part:

Each institution of higher education governed by the state board of regents shall make a student government organization’s access to and authority over any moneys disbursed to the student government organization by the institution contingent upon the student government organization’s compliance with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this chapter.

If, after exhaustion of all administrative appeals, it is determined that a student government organization knowingly and intentionally violated the First Amendment rights of a member of the campus community or that an action or decision of a student government organization is in violation of this section, the institution shall suspend the student government organization’s authority to manage and disburse student fees for a period of one year. During this period of suspension, such student fees shall be managed and disbursed by the institution.

Faculty and administrators have opposed such laws as intrusive but they continue to erode free speech protections on campus and create environments of intense viewpoint intolerance.

Even with the law and the warning from legal counsel, four representatives still voted against the funding in a 17-4 vote.

 

 

 

42 thoughts on “Iowa State Students Forced to Fund Conservative Group Under New Law”

  1. Viewpoint neutral funding of student groups has been well established as a constitutional requirement for decades. This law is superfluous.

    1. Your viewpoint is superfluous.

      Sidebar: how hard was it for you to locate the correct spelling of superfluous?

        1. You are new here. Pay attention to the resident troll who goes under dozens of sock puppets routinely insulting others on very personal levels, e.g. attacking Mespo with vulgar sexual references.

          This is war; genteel, ‘dignified’, Dudley do-rights can go f*** themselves

          https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/12/the-serpent-beguiled-me-the-whitmer-prosecution-and-the-entrapment-defense/comment-page-2/#comment-2173914

          Sammy / Anonymous says: April 12, 2022 at 5:42 PM
          IOWAN,
          Apparently rednecks like you couldn’t care less about the safety of police

    2. Viewpoint neutral funding of student groups has been well established as a constitutional requirement for decades.

      Who ever wrote that for you is just pranking you. Something so stupid, just to see how idiotic of a post you would send.

  2. The University of Iowa lost a $2 million First Amendment lawsuit involving the defunding of religious-based groups. No doubt this was in the back of the minds of the Iowa legislators who passed the law. A federal appeals court found university officials to be personally liable, adding further impetus to the actions taken in this case.

    https://dailyiowan.com/2021/12/07/iowa-state-appeal-board-to-pay-2-million-in-lawsuits-against-university-of-iowa-for-deregistering-two-religious-student-organizations/?msclkid=a663b0c0bb3511ec9e32f265446d61c5

    1. Holding the individuals involved to be personally liable is the real icing on the cake. Making the evil directly feel the pain is important.

  3. Even so-called conservatives dislike the group. Where was their First Amendment concerns when they banned one of their own members from attending meetings and speaking? Another conservative said they give conservatives a bad name, embodying every stereotype that Steve Bannon wants you to wear like a badge of honor. The issue isn’t free speech for conservatives, it’s not funding a hate group.

    “Fillipi said a while after voting for the bill had ended, she had received an email from the Treasurer of Young Americans for Freedom Jacob Frier, a senior majoring in finance, stating that she was banned from the organization’s events and meetings.

    The Daily attempted to contact Jacob Frier, but he has not responded.

    Fillipi was joined by other senators, one of which being College of Agriculture and Life Science Senator Devin Devore, a sophomore double majoring in agricultural business and agriculture and society. Devore said he is concerned about the image Young Americans for Freedom paints for conservatives.

    “[Young Americans for Freedom] are embodying the stereotypes of conservatives,” said Devore. “That we are racist, that we are outlandish…. All of those misconceptions that are out there, YAF embodies, and that is a problem.”

    1. “. . . it’s not funding a hate group.”

      So are those who hate this “hate group” a hate group? Just an extremely dislike group?

    2. Not allowing members that work against the values of a group is not discrimination.

      The relevant maxim here is “any entity that is not specifically conservative, will always devolve to leftist.

      1. I suspect that over the last few years, conservatism had devolved such that none of them can accurately define what they stand for. Small government, fiscal responsibility, rule of law? All that went out the window. They do stand for winning elections “by any means necessary” to quote Malcolm X. What are conservative values these days? Not rhetorical, I really want your view.

        1. Enigma, some politicians devolve. For instance, the entire Democrat Party devolved into a combination of Marxism and the other isms of fascism.

          Conservatism / Libertarianism doesn’t devolve as the principles remain. That is what Democrats and leftism lack, principles.

  4. Senator Victoria Fillipi, a junior majoring in political science, objected to any funding for the conservative group.“How long are we going to continue funding an organization that’s disrespectful and demeaning toward a huge population of Iowa State University’s campus?”

    She should get a stage show. Its a neat trick, to have your head entirely inserted in your bum, and speak and the same time. ‘a huge population of ISU students?

    Its an Agriculture and Engineering collage, in the middle of a red state. Victoria fails to wander from her protective bubble and puts her ingnorance in full display.

  5. Another factor about the granting of the group, is it now can accept donations and have access to physical assets to spread their message. Funding is out theire but until he group is legitimized by the granting of a charter, donores are hesitant. It then makes the member students, a voice of the student body.
    Not just a few making noise, but a recognized assembly of University Students.

  6. Students in student government, are scared of ideas. No, that’s not it. They fear looking like idiots debating the topic. Their ideas cannot withstand examination and debate, so eliminating the debate is their only option available to them. Censorship. The wielding of their limited power to silence debate is the only play they have left.

  7. [OT] “DirecTV to Drop One America News on Tuesday Despite Pressure”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/directv-to-drop-one-america-news-on-tuesday-despite-pressure

    “DirecTV plans to drop One America News Network on Tuesday, ignoring pressure to reverse course from the conservative cable outlet and its supporters. The satellite TV giant has been notifying customers that it will no longer carry OAN or AWE, a high-end lifestyle channel also owned by Herring Networks Inc., after April 4.”

    “Last month, DirecTV said it would begin offering another conservative option, Fox Nation, a subscription streaming app for Fox News fans.”

    “Former President Donald Trump has called for a boycott of DirecTV if it drops OAN, which had been a loyal supporter of his administration.”
    ————-

    Just the other day, Turley complained about those in Congress advocating the dropping of his Fox from satellite broadcasters.
    Funny isn’t it then that our great free speech defender against “Little Brother” hasn’t said word one about DirecTV cancelling Fox’s competitor, OAN, which routinely criticized Fox for not being loyal enough to Trump.

    Turley’s self-censorship presents 3 possibilities:

    1. As an employee, he knows better than to criticize the elimination of Fox’s competition;

    2. As a NeverTrumper, he is gratified that the most pro-Trump network has been silenced;

    3. He is a just a damn hypocrite.

    Perhaps, all 3.

    1. To stupid (inability to learn) to comment on topic, the retard cut and pastes something a sentient being e mailed to him.

      1. I’m not going to let Turley off the hook when he ignores important free speech stories. Turley rightly shames the MSM for ignoring the Hunter laptop story. My shaming Turley is no different.

        1. “I’m not going to let Turley off the hook” says the guy who is too afraid to send Turley an email.

        2. Jeff,

          There is no free speech issue when a private broadcast network drops a channel, it is their platform to do with as they see fit. However, for members of Congress to pressure broadcast networks to drop channels that promote opposing political views is a violation of the first amendment. Turley is correct on this and, as usual, you are not.

          As an aside, it is really sad that the first thing that you can think of to do at 5:30 am is to come to this blog and take cheap shots at Turley. You should try to find some purpose in life besides your hateful obsession with attacking Turley, Trump, Fox, and whatever other demons haunt your sad existence.

          1. Ray says:

            “There is no free speech issue when a private broadcast network drops a channel, it is their platform to do with as they see fit.”

            Turley calls that *Little Brother* censorship. You are not paying attention in Turley’s classroom. You want to read my notes?

            You say:

            “You should try to find some purpose in life besides your hateful obsession with attacking Turley, Trump, Fox, and whatever other demons haunt your sad existence.”

            You are not going to silence me. I’m going to continue to make a record on Turley’s blog of his hypocrisy, and there is nothing you or anyone else can say to make me stop. Anyone who may be researching Turley’s writings preparing to interview him needs to be aware of his shortcomings.

  8. I’m not sure, but I think the money doled out, is student money. Collected as part of the tuition. Maybe matching funds come from the University. Regardless, the Students are distributing the money to the students.
    But we are back to the same blindness exhibited by all leftist. Are you willing to live by the rules you use, if they are wielded by you enemy? Like the next post up. Are the law going to be applied evenly? Equal Protection is a thing….or is it?

  9. “Student government” is the case of the monkeys running the zoo. Never impressed with it even when I was in it. Today I’d disband it along with the “faculty senate” — another preening, cv building organization for social climbing and political posturing/virtue signaling.

    1. @Mespo: Not that you’re wrong about the result of either organization, but regional accreditation bodies require — and place great emphasis on — what is termed the “shared-governance model.” Universities even need to document evidence that SGA and both faculty- and staff senates have so input on campus policies and actions. From there, the federal DoE requires regional accreditation for the university to receive federal student financial aid.

      Such strings are the primary, stated reason that Hillsdale refuse to seek federal funding. Of course, that’s not to say they aren’t accredited and utilize self governance: They just don’t want to cede any control or authority to the State..

  10. Whig beat me to it. The universities shouldn’t be funding any of them. Politics has become a cancer, more so than at any other time on earth – if modern CNN and DNC style shenanigans are happening in Sri Lanka and Pakistan, you *know* we’ve gone too far (and I don’t know why they’d bother. Having majority control over dang near everything is sinking the dems here, and will continue to). And to the trolls, that is very different than our system being fatally flawed or useless.

  11. There are always a few idiots, whether here or on the Supreme Court to vote against it.

  12. Why do the Universities fund any of them? Recognition as an “approved” entity, equal access to facilities and the like are all that the groups should receive – not money.

    1. I’d be willing to wager that kids would just be having a shared life experience in something resembling solidarity if they weren’t being intellectually manhandled and neutered before matriculating. This problem will become intractable if we don’t course correct, and soon.

    2. @Whig98,
      Universities fund student organizations, as a way to assist them and foster involvement to enrich student life.

      The issue is that the Universities left the funding under the student government’s control and they of course used their own bias to promote their own political agendas. No fair play.

      The universities should have reigned that in… but then again. Look at the adults who run these schools.

      The sad thing is that a law had to be created to force the issue.

      -G

      1. Perhaps, but many years ago I was in a couple of clubs/groups in college despite the absence of any university financial support. And that included the college chapter of the ACLU.

Leave a Reply