It's funny that a study from Wisconsin tries to speak about this as it's similar if not exactly the same as this case: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98

It's funny that a study from Wisconsin tries to speak about this as it's similar if not exactly the same as this case: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1189.ZS.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1189.ZS.html Without re-reading the case(from memory) the idea is that students didn't want to pay fees that ALL student groups would be able to make use of. ie. Students of Color paying for NeoNazi groups, etc.. The court ruled that the idea of higher education is bolstered by more extreme specificity in as many areas as possible. Drawing a parallel to this case, I for one, could argue that having strong counterpoints helps me choose faster what side of a debate I am on. Thus, the polarization is actually a quickened education of the subject matter resulting in decision.