Judiciary rules against A.S.I.

Plaintiffs receive 15 cents from decision on controversial speech by Khallid Muhammad

The Cal State Long Beach Associated Students Judiciary found the Associated Students Inc. guilty of violating the Smith vs. UC Board of Regents ruling when the A.S.I. funded the Black Consciousness Conference in November.

Former Nation of Islam member Khallid Abdul Muhammad was the key speaker at the conference,

In a 3-1 decision, the judiciary applied the ruling of the state supreme court case which states that mandatory student fees cannot be used to support activities or student organizations or student organizations whose focus is to advance political or ideological interests.

Plaintiffs A.S. Senator Steven Negley and CSULB student Joseph Thinn will receive a refund of 15 cents, from the mandatory student fees which were used for the event.

"I wanted to make sure that Student Life and Development and Associated Students realize they made a mistake and try to invent some policies to try and stop this from happening again, these types of programs being funded," Negley said. "That was the whole purpose of my suit in the first place not just to get 15 cents."

Negley said that the verdict was fair, but contended that if the judgment was against him he would have taken the case to civil court and planned to win.

He added that only one or two percent of the programs that receive funding by the A.S.I. are affected by the Smith vs. UC Board of Regents ruling.

"This was the clearest example of blatant violation of Smith vs. Regents I could find," Negley said of the Muhammad's speech. "And that's why I chose it, and that's why I won."

Mark Raber, acting special counsel for the A.S.I., was not satisfied with the decision.

"I was somewhat disappointed," Raber said. "We did not have an adopted policy at the time."

The policy Raber is referring to is the CSULB policy which was adopted on Jan. 31, by the A.S. Board of Control. The policy which observes the Smith vs. UC Board of Regents ruling.

He said that the issue was to defend the policy, which was not adopted at the time of Muhammad's speech, November 1994.

Raber has not yet decided whether or not he will appeal the decision.

A complete rationale and decision will be awarded and will be posted no later than Friday, 6 p.m. in USU-201D. It will include the favoring and dissenting opinions of the judiciary in reaching its decision.

The case began when Negley and Thinn sued the Black Student Union, Black Cultural Programming Committee and the A.S.I. for the alleged misuse of mandatory student funds after Muhammad gave a speech at the conference during the 1994 fall semester.

The judiciary dismissed the BSU because it was not the correct party named in the case and the committee was dismissed by plaintiffs Negley and Thinn since the ruling applied to the provider of funds and not those who received funding. The dismissals left one defendant, the A.S.I.