This week marks the beginning of arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez) involving a University of California, Hastings College of Law anti-discrimination policy that a Christian student group says is too broad.
The policy says university student groups, including religious groups, cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation. Moreover, the policy prohibits student religious organizations from limiting membership or leadership roles to only those students who hold the group’s beliefs.
The Christian Legal Society chapter of the law school said it was denied official recognition, which it had for the better part of a decade, after it joined the national Christian Legal Society and adopted new by-laws that specifically narrows membership and leadership roles to those who hold to the Society’s statement of faith. As a result, it prohibits students practicing homosexuality or extra-marital sex. Hastings argues this violated the open-membership policy that student organizations must welcome all who are interested into membership positions.
The school’s antidiscrimination policy is faulty, misdirected and probably unconstitutional.
The constitutionality of the policy is extremely doubtful. Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of Hastings, no other court rulings of similar cases throughout the country have done similarly.
The C.L.S.’s brief to the Supreme Court says, “In every case outside of the Ninth Circuit [of San Francisco] where public universities have denied recognition to religious groups based on the rationales asserted here either the courts have ruled for the religious student group or the university has settled or mooted the case by revoking its unconstitutional policy.”
The student group and its advocates across the country argue the anti-discrimination policy violates the constitutional right to freedom of association.
Chicago’s Seventh Circuit heard the same type of case involving another C.L.S. chapter in an Illinois law school (Christian Legal Society v. Walker). That court said these types of open-membership policies prevent student groups from forming a coherent identity and purpose.
Opponents say a university does not violate the Constitution by regulating its limited public forums. In other words, the university is unable to provide all student groups the benefits that go along with official recognition. But in the Supreme Court ruling of Healy v. James, which said, as National Review Online blogger David French pointed out, “There can be no doubt that denial of official recognition, without justification, to college organizations burdens or abridges that associational right.”
Furthermore, as I said already, such anti-discrimination policies are misdirected. To my knowledge, almost all universities have student groups that open full membership and leadership positions only to those who share the same interests, hobbies, values, morality or religion. For instance, the MSU Muslim Student Association constitution only provides regular membership and executive positions to students who agree “to comply with this constitution in accordance with the principles of Islam.”
There is no discrimination here, at least with respect to civil rights. This so-called anti-discrimination policy represents a simplistic mindset on equality that views equality as everyone being the same. While we all should have equal rights, a university is a place filled with diversity. Allowing student groups to define their identity and purpose only furthers diversity. Enforcing overreaching anti-discrimination policies only causes unnecessary tension.
Matt Watson is a graduate student majoring in Spanish. He can be contacted at [email protected].