of the Dean of Students at Virginia Tech offer “programs primarily engaged in providing services to” disabled students. It is also undisputed that these programs are “State-funded” by the Commonwealth through the “Higher Education Student Services” appropriation made by the General Assembly. Virginia does not suggest any issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment regarding these two institutions. See Appellee’s Br. at 4 (“There [a]re no disputed issues of material fact”). Accordingly, on remand the district court is to grant partial summary judgment for NCSD, declaring that the Office of the Vice Pre sity control and are segregated from other university funds, they may not be considered as state funds. Cf. Schiff v. Williams, 519 F.2d 257, 262 & n. 2 (5th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); cf. also Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors
holding proper remedy when a christian student newspaper was denied student activities funds was to make funds available to the religious paper not to deny funds to nonreligious student groups holding state university is not a person under  1983 holding that student activity fees collected under authority of state law and disbursed at direction of board of trustees are university funds holding student activity fees not to be state funds when they were segregated from university funds and the state treasury holding constitutional the granting of student activity funds to the campus newspaper