 Accordingly, the UVA student activities fee was a patent violation of the principle of no direct government funding of organized religion, because the University of Virginia "exercises the power of the State to compel a student to" subsidize religion.Why does the Court not apply this clear law to these clear facts, and conclude, as I do, that the funding scheme here is a clear constitutional violation?The answer must be, in part, that the Court fails to confront the evidence set out in the preceding section.