Campus club discrimination
We read:
"The Christian Legal Society policy shouldn’t be controversial. Just as Democrats shouldn’t be forced to allow Republicans to dictate their messaging, the Sierra Club shouldn’t have to let the Drill Baby Drillers control its governance, and Outlaw, the gay and lesbian law students group, shouldn’t have to take a neutral stance on same-sex marriage, CLS should be able to exclude non-Christians and others who don’t abide by its mission statement.
After all, a group that can’t define itself, and exclude people who disagree with its goals, ceases to be a group. Yet the University of California Hastings law school refuses to provide CLS the resources available to other student organizations — use of bulletin boards, meeting spaces, access to funding — on the grounds that its membership rules violate the school’s anti-discrimination policy.
It’s a dismal situation: Provide the funding, and the university — a government entity — subsidizes speech and viewpoints many taxpayers find intolerable. Withhold it, and government discriminates against students based on their religion and speech. Is there any solution?”
Legally, CLS wins the case: While "freedom of association" is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled it an inescapable part of speech and assembly rights protected by the First Amendment. For example, when Alabama wanted the NAACP to disclose its membership lists, the court found that full speech rights can be realized only if people can come together to coordinate and amplify their speech.
NAACP v. Alabama (1958) has direct implications for Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, making clear that government cannot give preference to some associations over others, which is what Hastings has done by only recognizing groups that adhere to its nondiscrimination policies.
These and other rights-infringing situations could have been avoided if public schools simply did not support student activities; no subsidies mean no discrimination. But students want their subsidized clubs, and schools are happy to fund them as long as it helps bring in students and their tuition dollars.
Source
5 comments:
1. If it was instead a Muslim group, I doubt this would be an issue.
2. Rinse
3. Repeat
"But students want their subsidized clubs, and schools are happy to fund them as long as it helps bring in students and their tuition dollars."
The schools are happy to fund them, so long as the groups message complys with the schools leftist agenda. How typical of a government-funded, leftist institution to use discrimination to enforce their so-called anti-discrimination policy.
Often the funding, or a portion there of, comes from a mandatory activity fee. Correct?
Christophobia?
I never liked the mandatory activity fee, it's a form of fascism. What about students who don't play sports, don't join clubs and don't participate in anything other than going to class, having a part time job and studying? They have rights to.
Post a Comment