Court rules against CLS
A Supreme Court ruling Monday allows public schools to deny Christian campus groups recognition and funding if it bans any students from being a member or having a leadership role, AP reports.
In a 5-4 vote, the Court voted in favor of the policy at University of California’s Hasting College of the Law that would not recognize or give funding to the Christian Legal Society (CLS) because it required its members and officers to sign a statement of faith that included that “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” were inconsistent with the faith. However, the CLS does welcome all students of any beliefs to come to their bible studies.
Because there are very few other public universities that have the same policy as Hastings, the Alliance Defense Fund, the group that represented the CLS, expects the ruling to have little immediate effect on other student groups. But they are concerned about the long-term effects of this ruling.
“The Hastings policy actually requires CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies and the College Democrats to accept the election of Republican officers in order for the groups to be recognized on campus,” explained ADF Senior Legal Counsel Gregory S. Baylor, in a statement. “We agree with Justice Alito in his dissent that the court should have rejected this as absurd.”

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top29 Comments to “Court rules against CLS”
Let me guess, Sotomayor was one of the five. I just wonder if this applies to all campus groups.
Report comment to moderator
So, basically if you wanted to get rid a group you don’t like just flood the membership, elected your own officers and totally changed the nature of the group.
Report comment to moderator
If you’re going to support public funding of education, you have to expect this stuff.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t understand why Christian groups continue to EXPECT money and equality from ANY college.
Report comment to moderator
My second attempt to answer Esther 4.14. Don’t know what happened, but try this from our own WORLD magazine Twitter:
http://bit.ly/b6i6WG
Or, in the event of continuing failure, go to “WORLD on Twitter, FEED” and find it there.
Report comment to moderator
Actually Macrutabaga (3) – this is what you expect if there is no public funding of education: viewpoint discrimination. If a private university did this, there would be no story. They can do whatever they like. But, if it is publically funded, then they should, under the current interpretation of the anti-establishment clause (among other things) give equal treatment to religious groups as to other groups. In principle.
4 – Because they haven’t given up on the 1st Ammendment quite yet.
I suppose in reality, the public university system is too far gone… but at least these cases highlight that bias against Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
And for the record, I oppose public fundign of education (at least given the current “separation of church and state” rulings which promote some worldviews – secular humanism – over others – like Biblical Christianity).
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Allen Wrench. So, yes, Sotomayor was one of the five, and the law is supposed to apply to everyone.
Report comment to moderator
Doesn’t this make the case for more universities rejecting public/government funding and control? Gradually, more alumni of liberal universities are donating to a few private colleges that don’t accept federal funds. Government funding of public universities only raises the tuition because the schools know they will get it.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not so sure I’d knee-jerk oppose this ruling. Read the decision here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Essentially the question before the court was whether it is unconstitutional for a public school to institute a non-exclusivity requirement for registered student organizations [i]that is applied universally to all student organizations[/i]. The court held that such a policy is not unconstitutional.
The CLS argued that the school’s policy was specifically targeted at religious student groups and their exclusions based on sexual preference and was therefore unconstitutional on those grounds. But this contradicts the joint stipulation of facts presented by both parties during the summary judgment phase, which points out that the school’s policy would forbid the Democratic Caucus from excluding students who hold Republican beliefs.
So, this decision doesn’t require other schools to adopt similar policies. It just affirms that its with a school’s legal rights to institute such a policy as long as it is applied evenly to all student groups.
Report comment to moderator
The ADS statement misrepresents the policy in effect at Hastings. Students are still bound by an honor code. The honor code prevents them from joining groups for purposes of frustrating the group’s stated objectives.
When I was in law school, I was a member of CLS. We refused the school’s money because we felt that it was improper to fund sectarian Christian activities with other students’ fee money. We raised funds from local churches and from Christian lawyers.
Many schools have policies similar to those of Hastings. Many are not state-run schools, so the First Amendment is not implicated. But even at state-run schools, I’d bet that students have better things to do than pick meaningless fights that are disruptive to the peace of the law-school community.
Report comment to moderator
Let us pray…
Of course since members of one denomination are at least partially atheists with respect to all others, it won’t make much of a difference.
Heavens, you might even have a situation where a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness, a Koreshi or some other “cult” member can lead a “Christian” campus group. Or…even a Catholic.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t follow, SEANMT, #6. This ruling isn’t all that out of line with various other, similar ones based on some interpretation of the Establishment clause. So given that receipt of pubic funds makes schools largely beholden and accountable to the government for their policies, this ruling is what one should expect as regards public schools. As you mention, were this a private institution, it’s a non-issue.
Report comment to moderator
Mac,
The case had nothing to do with the Establishment Clause.
Report comment to moderator
RSD: SEANMT brought it up in 6, which is what I was responding to.
Report comment to moderator
But either way, RSD, the Establishment Clause does bear on this case. I didn’t mean to imply SEANMT was mistaken about its relevance.
Report comment to moderator
Mac,
Then please provide pinpoint cites to the sections of the opinion that address the Establishment Clause.
Report comment to moderator
This is sort of the flip side to Liberty University’s decision to ban College Democrats at their campus. The argument was Liberty opposes abortion on demand. The Democratic party enforces strict unquestioning support of Roe.
But this tends to strike at the Freedom of Association, no? Its one thing to say you cannot join group X if you are of this or that skin pigment. Quite another to say Group X believes ABC. If you reject ABC you should start your own group then. The issue would then be does the university equally fund the pro and anti ABC groups? Even if one had only 3 members and the other had 300??
This policy is discomfitting on multiple levels. At the Univ Tx Austin, all “registered” student groups had to have a faculty sponsor. That entitled them to use of campus buildings, meeting rooms etc. The various student groups were for the most part eager to see increases in mandatory fees since it meant ea group would be getting a bigger slice of the take.
I always thought the smart thing woulda been to let the students choose how they wanted their campus org. fees allocated (Crusade, Intervarsity, GLBT Republican muslims, Agnostic vegetarians etc).
Report comment to moderator
This has the potential to cause a lot of disruption on college campuses.
If dozens of Christians join an atheist group, they can virtually force it to disband–or simply transform it into a Christian group.
Democrats can join the Republican group, and Republicans can join the Democratic group, and the fighting will go on and on and on.
Report comment to moderator
It also establishes a principle that would require a campus atheist group to allow Christians to lead discussions in order to get funding. And I am pretty sure none of you would complain if that was the case here.
Kyle says:
That’s only true if the group wants funding from the school, though. And if it does, why should it then have the power to exclude from membership some of the students whose fees are paying for it?
If you want a club limited to people of a certain religious or political affiliation, nothing about this ruling prevents that — you just have to do it on your dime.
Report comment to moderator
#18: In a thread I read elsewhere, someone claimed that Stanford used to have a policy like this. Students got a “line item veto” on what groups their fees went to.
Report comment to moderator
FWIW, law sudents are pretty independent people, and they find their own, so i think Christians will still get together off campus. Do i like the decision? no
Report comment to moderator
#22: I’m curious, does the flip side of this decision not appeal to you at all? Namely that, if a school enacts a policy like this, no registered student organization can exclude Christians or someone who holds conservative beliefs?
Report comment to moderator
It seems weird to me that a group is told who they can’t exclude from leadership. Sure, say anybody can come (as they have done), but groups should be able to set their own standards for leadership!
Report comment to moderator
doesn’t appeal, because i don’t think Christians would waste their time forcing themselves on those who don’t want them.
Report comment to moderator
#25: Really? I can imagine lots of scenarios where student groups (at a school with a predominantly liberal student body) that a Christian/Conservative might wish to join might exclude Christians/Conservatives.
For instance, what about a pre-med student group that excludes anyone who opposes legal and available abortion?
How about a physics society that excludes anyone who doesn’t sign a statement rejecting intelligent design?
Report comment to moderator
RSD: The the Court’s opinion (pdf) makes references to Widmar v. Vincent and Rosenberger v. U of VA in support of its decision. Those cases largely concern the Establishment Clause and preferring one religious group over another. The opinion states, “In three cases, this Court held that public universities had unconstitutionally singled out student groups for disfavored treatment because of their points of view.“
Later, the Opinion states,
This is from a quick perusal. It may be that the Establishment Clause was not a prominent consideration in the case (although maybe it was), but I don’t think it’s accurate to say this case had nothing to do with it.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, it doesn’t appeal to me at all. If a university were to tell group X that they couldn’t keep someone out just because they were a Christian, they would be wrong. If group X decides to keep people out, that’s group X’s buisness.
Report comment to moderator
Mac,
You’re swimming upstream. Healy held that the university’s regulation had improperly limited speech because it infringed on a fundamental right, i.e., the free exercise of religion. For this reason, the regulation was subjected to strict scrutiny, which requires that the regulation be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The Court held that the regulation was not narrowly tailored to the goal of avoiding excessive entanglement with religion. So, sure, the Establishment Clause was hovering in the background (basely) in Healy.
But nowhere in the instant case did Hastings ever proffer such a justification for its non-discrimination policy. Nowhere did Hastings argue that it enacted the non-discrimination policy for any reason even tangentially related to the Establishment Clause. In fact, the Court cites to the above-quoted portion of Healy to make that very point–that the facts of Healy are distinguishable from those of the instant case. CLS even stipulated to this when it agreed with Hastings that the non-discrimination policy was religiously neutral.
Regarding other comments…
I would agree that the policy is a bit silly. But because strict scrutiny does not apply, silly policies are allowed to stand. It id more efficient for students to vote to overturn silly policies than for courts to rewrite the policies to their own liking.
Besides, the CLS argument seems to be a bit nutty. There is no debate that the non-discrimination policy is religiously neutral on its face. So, CLS argued that the policy implicitly singles out religious speech because religious conviction is the primary reason why someone would want to engage in conduct that violates certain aspects of the policy. But the practical implications of such a rule are ridiculous. Under the CLS argument, I could start a KKK chapter at law school, so long as my reason for discriminating against non-whites was based on my religion. As long as religious belief is a reason for which one might engage in discrimination, groups could selective opt out the policy (or any regulation). Hey…how about a religion that said that I should not have to pay my bar tab at the end of the night. Absurd.
Besides, it seems like the CLS folks at Hastings were trying to turn their student organization into a quasi-church. What ecclesial authority do unordained law students possess to carry out church discipline and conduct worship-like assemblies? Clearly they are usurping authority that rightly belongs to the local church and her ordained officers. My session has the authority to discipline me; no one else does save God (and the state, in certain limited instances).
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!