Just one week after oral argument (see prior posting), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a one-paragraph decision in Christian Legal Society v. Kane, (9th Cir., March 17, 2009), upholding the right of Hastings College of Law to impose its policy against discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation on a student religious group seeking formal recognition. Citing its decision last year in In Truth v. Kent School District, the court said:
The parties stipulate that Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups—all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group. The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable.Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle reports on the decision.
.jpg)
Posts
8 comments:
Whatever the legal niceties of the case, it seems absurd to the point of insanity that ANY group could be coerced by government action-through government courts or government educational bureaucracies to allow people to join their group who want to defeat that group's mission and/or destroy the group itself. There is something grossly wrong in this picture.
When I was in law school, the pro-choice student group tried to take over the pro-life student group -- no joke. The pro-life student group put a requirement in its bylaws stating that to join the group one had to be pro-life. The Student Bar Association then revoked the pro-life group's charter on the basis that it discriminated against students based on ideology. The pro-life group was doomed from the get go.
No group is coerced into accepting members into their ranks that they do not wish, Deacon John.
Rather, the state is putting limits on the use of its property by third parties.
After all, it isn't as if this particular group is being told they can't exist, or that they must admit people they do not wish to admit. Rather, this group is beign told that as a condition of being allowed to use the property of a third party (the University), they must comply with certain restrictions.
If the group does not wish to admit someone for any reason, good or bad, they do not have to. They simply don't get to use University property in doing so.
I can allow anyone I want to to hold a backyard grill-out. If I choose to set a condition of 'No alcohol' in my backyard, I am not forcing groups to go dry for their grill-outs. They just can't use my backyard.
--MD
Mark certainly underscores how destructive government power interference in groups can be. Anon.-one purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to protect the rights of groups as well as individuals. Yet under the "rights" guise it is clear government power is being used (and the Constitution disemboweled)to destroy groups which are not politically favored. And that university "backyard" as I understand it is a publicly funded university backyard so there should be far more freedom for groups to operate as they see fit in it.
Actually, the facts of the case are somewhat different from what's being assumed here. The CLS had been a funded student group until 2004, when they knowingly adopted the restrictive membership policy that conflicted with school funding policies for student groups. The actual funding comes from a Student Activity Fee, which is paid by all students, assessed with tuition. And although Hastings refused to continue to fund the CLS, they did offer to let them continue to use school facilities for meetings.
The school's policy seems entirely reasonable to me. It makes no attempt to influence a groups viewpoint, but only to insure that groups supported with the Student Activity Fee are open to all students.
Tim,
Groups are open to all students to ATTEND but not to manage. Allowing people who don't believe in Christ to manage a Christian group obviously destroys the group.
How about Jewish campus groups being told they must admit a large group of Jew for Jesus or skin heads or Neo-Nazis who are also students? Same deal.
This exact matter has been heard by other courts and the Christian students always prevailed. This court ruling is a first.
It is like the court telling Rosa Parks she is welcomed to ride the bus... in the backseat!
Anon at 3:02 Friday:
Actually it is like telling Ms. Parks that, if she wants to ride on the bus for free, she cannot refuse seating to others.
As for your review of the legal cases... better try again.
Anon,
Maybe before you assert that this is a "first", you ought to look at the case the court cited in their decision.
You might also want to review the meaning of the words, "exact matter", and clarify your position. You mean this particular case, with this set of plaintiffs and defendants, has been tried several times?
Post a Comment