Today, in an editorial in favor of a lawsuit filed against the University of California’s Hastings College of Law, the editors of the Washington Times mention an amicus brief in which I played a small part. You see, “U.C. Hastings denied the status of ‘Registered Student Organization’ (RSO) to . . . the Christian Legal Society (CLS), a conservative religious student group.” Without RSO recognition, the group could not meet in university rooms or “use ordinary campus means of communicating”.
The school refused to register the group
. . . because it requires its voting members and officers to abide by an extensive, faith-based pledge that includes a prohibition on all premarital and extramarital sex. Anybody can come to the group’s meetings and participate, but only those – heterosexual and homosexual alike – who adopt the Statement of Faith can serve as officers and actually lead the Bible study. The university administration decided that a prohibition on sexual activity applicable to all voting members somehow discriminates specifically against homosexuals. (Secondarily, it said CLS discriminates on the basis of religion.)
Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL), a group of which I am a member, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the CLS, not because we support their policy, but because we support their freedom to set their own standards for membership, much as we would support the freedom of a woman’s group to advocate a feminist ideology or a sport club to promote a softball tournament (limited to qualified athletes).
When Rick Sincere who moderates our listserv asked whether our group should file such a brief, I strongly encouraged the group to do so–to support (and articulate) the ideal of freedom for which our nation’s founders pledges their live, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
In the brief, we stood strongly against forced membership policies and for freedom of association. For just as freedom of association means a Christian group can exclude non-celibate individuals from its leaderships, can a gay group can exclude those biased against people like us from its leadership:
Hasting’ forced-membership policy needlessly pits associational freedom against equality. Loss of associational freedom is the price of admission to Hastings’ speech forum. . . . [The] policy significantly impairs CLS’s ability to express its core beliefs because it would require CLS to place control over its message in the hands of those who reject its core beliefs as encapsulated in the Statement of Faith.
CLS should determine its own beliefs, not some university council.
Let us hope other gay groups join GLIL in standing up for the freedom of association. If the court prevents Christian groups from defining the standards for their own association at a public university, public universities in regions of the country not favorably disposed to people like us could prevent gay groups from setting their own standards.
Let me repeat, the issue here is not the ideology of the Christian group, but their freedom to express those beliefs and associate with whomever they choice, rights guaranteed explicitly in the First Amendment to the Consitution.
Agreed! One must always stand by his principles.
It’s funny to go back and forth between this site and Hotair. The last few days, Hotair has been gay central… even more than Gay Patriot hah!
this group is being denied RSO status. that, in of itself, does not mean the group is denied first amendment rights. they are free to speak and to associate with whom they please, but the university should not be forced to sanction their discriminatory beliefs.
“Discriminatory” has no fixed meaning. All groups are discriminatory: that’s why they’re “groups” and not “everybody”.
What’s the threshold for discrimination? Unless you’re suggesting that “discrimination on the basis of promiscuity” is a valid concern…
I’m not sure about this one. CLS as a private group has every right to set its membership rules as it sees fit, including whatever limitations for its officers it chooses. What I balk at is using money from a public university to subsidize this.
the freedom argument also cuts both ways. if you side with CLS, you’re infringing on the university’s own associational freedoms. you’re also infringing on the university’s academic freedom to promulgate its own operating policies.
@4: i don’t know the answer to that question, but it seems clear to me, based on dan’s description, that discrimination is taking place, since the policy bars gays from its leadership positions.
Chad, if it were a private university, I’d agree with you.
on which point? i think it would be very odd to conclude that public universities should be prohibited from enacting non-discrimination policies.
and i still don’t think CLS can credibly claim that their voices are silenced here. they can still meet, associate and speak, they are just denied RSO status and, as john noted, taxpayer subsidies.
on the point of whether or not a group can participate. I don’t believe public universities should be allowed to discriminate and they are doing so here.
Jeez. This is such a no-brainer. A campus group should be able to control its own membership. Maybe there are some issues around funding or sponsorship by the university … just maybe. But somehow I doubt it.
My only disagreement would be with the linked article which casts this narrowly as a ‘religious freedom’ issue. It’s more of general freedom issue than anything else!
Is the university forced to admit students based on skin color or sex of applicants?
Does the university admit all who apply or only a select few?
Chad,
So the first ammendment should be honoured, except when it shouldn’t. Right?
livewire, that’s a totally dishonest characterization of my argument.
13: Where does the First Amendment say that the taxpayer has to subsidize someone’s religious beliefs? That’s the only issue that matters to me here. Like I said, CLS has every right to set its membership policies as it sees fit.
John,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,”
Since the University of Hastings is a state university, it is subject to the first, through the 14th.
Checking the university’s website I see recognized the following:
Hastings Catholic Law Students Association
Hastings Jewish Law Students Association
Hastings OUTLAW
La Raza (for all your racist needs)
just to name a few.
Now, all of the groups have a ‘members must promote our causes’ clause, so in prohibiting the CLS the right of ratification they are discriminating against a religious group.
So as a government agency, they should be either extending the benefits to no organizations or all of them. In picking and choosing as they do, they break the law.
Whether the 14th ammendment was bad law or not, I’ll leave as an acedemic exercise.
aside: How can you have a law organization dedicated to lawbreakers (illegal immigrants)?
livewire, you made a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions in your last comment.
first, you assert that all the groups have a ‘members must promote our causes’ clause. based on what authority? simply because these groups are based on affinity does not mean they exclude other students. this is in stark contrast with the CLS, which affirmatively prohibits LGBT students from holding leadership positions.
second, you assert: So as a government agency, they should be either extending the benefits to no organizations or all of them. In picking and choosing as they do, they break the law.
really? again, based on what legal authority? certainly not the 14th amendment, which is silent on how the government must allocate “benefits” in the form of tax subsidies. so what legal authority, if any, do you rely on in making that pronouncement?
even assuming that CLS has a cognizable equal protection claim (a dubious assertion to say the least), how does that implicate their first amendment freedom, which is the subject of this post? how are they denied the right to speak, associate or meet simply because they don’t have access to university/taxpayer funds? the university didn’t order the group to disband, or insist that they alter their membership criteria, they simply told them they aren’t eligible for RSO status until they comply with the university’s non-discrimination policy. that action doesn’t implicate CLS’s first amendment rights.
third, there’s a difference between “illegal immigrants” and “hispanics.” educate yourself before you smear an entire group of people by calling them criminals.
Chad,
first, from the bylaws, which are online at the links I gave. Since they can also expell members for not following those bylaws, you’re arguement falls flat.
Second, I’m referring to the establishment clause, as it’s been interpreted. The Supremes ruled that things like school choice vouchers can’t be denied private schools because they are religious based. Since they are denying their right to assemble based on their religious clause, while they let organizations that are founded to promote Jewish, Catholic, LGBT, Racist, etc issues, they are discriminating.
Relevent part of the 14th ammendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
Please, if you have something relevant to the conversation, speak up. Elsewise, kindly let the adults speak.
Chad,
I forgot, you can’t read. You didn’t even read the original post.
” Anybody can come to the group’s meetings and participate, but only those – heterosexual and homosexual alike – who adopt the Statement of Faith can serve as officers and actually lead the Bible study.”
You said: “which affirmatively prohibits LGBT students from holding leadership positions.”
One of these things is not like the other. Maybe them side by side, you’ll somehow figure that out.