Should a public university be allowed to withhold funding from a Christian student group because that group bars new members who hold beliefs or engage in conduct inconsistent with the group’s shared viewpoints? On April 19, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which addresses this question. The University of California Hastings College of the Law says it requires all student groups to abide by its nondiscrimination policy which requires all groups to maintain an open membership policy, admitting any students regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. The Christian Legal Society (CLS) claims that, as a religious organization, it must be able to discriminate in its membership to preserve its values.
The way in which this suit arose is somewhat perplexing, as the school’s counsel said in response (PDF) to a CLS demand letter (PDF). Although the CLS evidently complied with the open membership policy for years, it suddenly decided to amend its bylaws to exclude potential members who do not adhere to an “orthadox” interpretation of the national CLS’ Statement of Faith (below), which includes conservative views condemning homosexuality and the support of homosexuality. The school then refused to recognize or fund the student group, although it did offer the use of its facilities if the group wished to be organized separately from the university.
Trusting in Jesus Christ as my Savior, I believe in:
- One God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
- The Deity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; His vicarious death for our sins through which we receive eternal life; His bodily resurrection and personal return.
- The presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration.
- The Bible as the inspired Word of God.
The CLS chapter wants to be able to exclude members who “engage in homosexual conduct or adhere to the viewpoint that homosexual conduct is not sinful.” The initial point of clash is that the university nondiscrimination policy conflicts with the national CLS organization’s constitution. The more substantive conflict is over the First Amendment.
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, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Several elements of the First Amendment are involved in this case. The CLS chapter claims that the nondiscrimination policy violates the CLS’s rights to freedom of religion, free speech, and free association (and the right not to associate); the school argues that granting an exemption to a religious group would violate the establishment clause.
The District Court shot down each of the CLS’s arguments in its order for summary judgment (PDF), and the Ninth Circuit affirmed with just a short memorandum opinion (PDF):
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. AFFIRMED.
It has been long established that a university organization cannot be denied funding because of the opinions it advocates, regardless of how deplorable or unusual they may be. This is where the fundamental misunderstanding of the CLS chapter lies. Their funding denial did not result from the opinions of the group, but the discriminatory practices. Viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government targets particular views taken by speakers on a subject. But the lower courts found that Hastings did not exclude the CLS because it is a religious group or because it expresses religious opinions, but rather because it refused to adhere with the school’s nondiscrimination policy which is imposed on all student organizations.
The tension between anti-discrimination and religiously-motivated discrimination has been demonstrated in numerous recent court cases. Conservative Christians interpret decisions favoring anti-discrimination policies to be “attacks” on Christianity itself, which is perplexing. Our society has visited the anti-discrimination vs. discrimination battle before, and the conflict is well resolved. The injection of religious motivation changes the nature of the discrimination, but not enough that we are likely to turn around on the fundamental question. Even though the Supreme Court is one of the most conservative modern courts to sit, this case should still be decided in favor of the university and its nondiscrimination policy.
