Students at the University of Missouri at Kansas City wanted to test the school's commitment to First Amendment rights. So they devised an over-the-top student organization called Students Against Conservative America and the Military (SACAM) and submitted the organization for review by the Student Government Association Senate. Though the group had deliberately outrageous terms--its charter declared that the group's goal would be to "oppose the growing number of conservatives on campus and local communities"--it fulfilled its procedural obligations and ought to have been granted recognition as a group.

The law is quite clear on the First Amendment rights of student groups; indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue in three separate cases: Widmar v Vincent (1981), Rosenberger v University of Virginia (1995), and University of Wisconsin Board of Regents v Southworth (2000). But UMKC's student leaders appear to be ignorant of their obligations under the law. They don't realize that they have no right to determine a prospective group's viability in terms of that group's politics; they do not understand that their decisions about what groups should and should not be recognized must, under the law, be content-neutral.

So it is that SACAM, which was never really going to be an actual group, and which only existed on paper to test the university's legal awareness, was not given recognition. SACAM's application was instead tabled by the student senate because the group's mission was so upsetting to student senators. For example, one student senator called SACAM a "hate group." Another called it "discriminatory." Another argued that to recognize SACAM would be to support a group that was probably anti-homosexual. Still another argued that recognizing SACAM might pave the way for a Knights of the Aryan Race chapter to be founded on campus. After delaying a decision on SACAM for a month, the student senate passed the buck. It tabled SACAM's candidacy indefinitely, pending formal review by the university's Legal Council.

The president of the student government both does and does not seem to get it. He feels that it is wrong to evaluate student groups according to their content, but he did not stop the senate from violating the rights of SACAM's founders by doing just that: "It's not the role of the senate to make content calls and say 'yes' or 'no' to student organizations coming into fruition," he said, but noted that "certain senators thought punishment before the crime is committed was the best course of action." He acknowledges that "rights delayed are rights denied," but he led the student senate in denying-by-delaying anyway. The university likewise both acknowledges that the student government's actions were unconstitutional, and is practicing denying-by-delaying itself: Administrators have yet to correct the senate's wrong.

Austin Case, who conceived the SACAM experiment, feels he has proved his point. "Our student senate is a non-representative body and they are willing to put political ideologies ahead of students," he says. "And our administration is slow to act because they are worried about their jobs and appearances." Case is hoping that the SACAM experiment will help secure the rights of real controversial student groups in the future. But it may also be the case that all the SACAM experiment has taught the good administrators and student leaders at Missouri is the political efficacy of institutional inaction.

"...certain senators thought punishment before the crime is committed was the best course of action."

Just great: let's add prior restraint to compound all the other constitutional problems here. In the immortal words of Lewis Carroll's Red Queen, "verdict first, trial after."

Why does EVERYONE involved with this situation appear to be completely ignorant of their legal obligations? It's not like this area of law is really all that complicated.

Am I missing something here? Is there a point to this? Don't those students have homework to do or something?

Free speech is important, yes. No denying that. I respect that. But when we go around looking for people to deprive us of it, I just don't know how that helps the cause. These students had nothing other in mind than creating this problem. I'm just left thinking "what's the point?"

Let's protest injustice when it seeks and finds us. It's almost as if people just don't want to be happy.

It is premature to suggest that SACAM's First Amendment rights have been violated; the fact that the Student Gov't Assn. Senate (SGAG) sent the matter to the university's council suggests that SACAM's rights are, indeed, being taken seriously.

Basil, I disagree. The student government has no authority regarding the views of the group itself. Their delaying action, regardless of its intent, is an obstruction of rights on grounds for which the student government has no authority to deny them.

The SACAM experiment seems to suffer from incoherency, since it seems designed to offend every possible group. While I can sympathize with the view that seeking out trouble isn't necessarily the most worthwhile goal, the situation would have been easily defused if the student government had proceeded in a viewpoint neutral fashion. By ignoring the rightful limitations on their own power, it is the student government which created the conflict.

And while we may disagree on the overall usefulness of this type of purposeful incitement tactic, it's utilized all the type in other contexts to "raise awareness" on issues. The students here are trying to do some good by educating people on the limitations, or lack thereof, on speech. Let's not dismiss them out of hand for adopting crude tactics.

I attend this school, and while I didn't fully support the SACAM experiment, it was designed to further other goals. Our SGA has continuously denied our rights of speech and assembly and this was the first attempt at exposing the illegality of our SGA.

As a result of the experiment, the SGA has been stripped of its ability to approve or deny student groups, risks losing its ability to allocate funds, and is finally realizing it can no longer be a un-democratic country club used to push their conservative agenda with student fees.

It is very the possible this country club will be recalled by the admin and immediate POPULAR elections held to correct these problems.

As the founder of SACAM I have to say I am elated with the outcome the fake group has produced. University legal has shutdown the student senates ability to approve or deny student groups. This is truly a victory for free speech/assembly on our campus. In the past our senate has forced content and wording changes on a number of student organizations. This practice is over now. It seems that groups in the past thought it less trouble to just go along with the senate than to force the administration to take the issue to university legal. I also would like to throw a compliment to the this blog!! Much better written story than appeared in the university newspaper. Also, my sympathies for our SGA president who try as he might for causes like this (banning release of student records to the military) is really at the whim of a conservative majority in the senate. Those who know, know he did all he could.