The court, in rejecting plaintiff's claim against the University of California faculty, concluded that plaintiff's
asserted interest- informed participation as a citizen in school board meetings, debates, and elections, especially with respect to selection of instructional materials and how teachers teach the theory of evolution in biology classes in the public schools -- is not sufficiently differentiated and direct to confer standing on her to challenge the University of California's treatment of religious and anti-religious views on evolution. An interest in informed participation in public discourse is one we hold in common as citizens in a democracy.Judge Fletcher wrote a concurring opinion to spell out in more detail why plaintiff lacks standing. He argued that her injury from offensive content on one of 840 pages in the website was de minimis.