Supreme Court: Public schools can deny funding to Christian student groups that bar gays

posted at 4:34 pm on June 28, 2010 by Allahpundit

The ruling’s not as clear-cut as you might think. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t say schools can deny funding to student groups that discriminate against gays. What it says is that a school can set an “all-comers” policy that requires groups to admit literally anyone who wants to join; if your group refuses admittance to someone for any reason, then you don’t get any funds. See the difference? The “no discriminating against gays” rule would violate the First Amendment because it imposes a certain viewpoint as a condition for public funds. The “no discriminating against anyone” rule is, at least on its face, neutral.

Just one or two problems with that. According to Alito’s dissent, the school (Hastings) did originally try to justify its policy in terms of a “no discriminating against gays” rule. Only as the case progressed and they realized that that was a sure loser in court did they switch to the “no discriminating against anyone” policy. The other obvious problem? If, as a condition of public funding, you can’t refuse to admit anyone, what happens if the campus Democrats decide to join the College Republicans en masse and take it over? The majority politely refuses to address that hypothetical, but Alito has questions. From page 35 of his dissent:

One final aspect of the Court’s decision warrants comment. In response to the argument that the accept-all-comers-policy would permit a small and unpopular group to be taken over by students who wish to silence its mes-sage, the Court states that the policy would permit a registered group to impose membership requirements “designed to ensure that students join because of their commitment to a group’s vitality, not its demise.” Ante, at 27. With this concession, the Court tacitly recognizes that Hastings does not really have an accept-all-comers policy—it has an accept-some-dissident-comers policy—and the line between members who merely seek to change a group’s message (who apparently must be admitted) and those who seek a group’s “demise” (who may be kept out) is hopelessly vague…

The possibility of such takeovers, however, is by no means the most important effect of the Court’s holding. There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do not share their faith, and for these groups, the consequence of an accept-all-comers policy is marginalization.

In other words, even the “no discriminating against anyone” rule isn’t absolute — in which case, why should any group that’s deeply devoted to a particular point of view be forced to admit people who disagree with that viewpoint?

But of course, we’re not talking about just any group here. Alito considers the “no discriminating against gays, specifically” rule too, and notes the key distinction between religious groups and most other types of student groups. For the religious group, moral disapproval of certain behaviors is baked in the cake. A “Students Against Carbon Emissions” group, say, can express its point of view perfectly well without discriminating on the basis of race, religion, orientation, etc., but it’s a tad more complicated for the devout Christian (or Muslim) group. Page 22 of the dissent:

It bears emphasis that permitting religious groups to limit membership to those who share the groups’ beliefs would not have the effect of allowing other groups to discriminate on the basis of religion. It would not mean, for example, that fraternities or sororities could exclude students on that basis. As our cases have recognized, the right of expressive association permits a group to exclude an applicant for membership only if the admission of that person would “affec[t] in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.” Dale, 530 U. S., at 648. Groups that do not engage in expressive association have no such right. Similarly, groups that are dedicated to expressing a viewpoint on a secular topic (for example, a political or ideological viewpoint) would have no basis for limiting membership based on religion because the presence of members with diverse religious beliefs would have no effect on the group’s ability to express its views. But for religious groups, the situation is very different. This point was put well by a coalition of Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Sikh groups: “Of course there is a strong interest in prohibiting religious discrimination where religion is irrelevant. But it is fundamentally confused to apply a rule against religious discrimination to a religious association.” Brief for American Islamic Congress et al. as Amici Curiae 3.

Exit question: Under Alito’s framework, would it be okay for a school to deny funding to a student group that espouses racial supremacism of one kind or another? If refusing membership on the basis of race is part of their core belief system, then presumably it’d be a free-speech violation to make them do otherwise. And a follow-up question: What if a gay but devoutly Christian student wanted to join the Christian group in this case? Assume that he agreed with their moral code that homosexuality is immoral, that it shouldn’t be practiced, etc. Is it okay to deny him membership, or does the fact that he technically doesn’t undermine their viewpoint mean the “all-comers” policy should apply there?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

So what happens if a white supremacist wants to join a black student group to harass them? I’m sure the government will make the black group accept the white supremacist or cut off the funding.

Ooh, or how about a Muslim group that a Jewish student wants to join? Surely the group will have funding pulled unless it accepts the Jewish student, right?

For some reason I doubt the same precedent will be followed across the board. Some groups will be more protected than others.

amerpundit on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

I’m OK with this as long as the ruling is applied equally. That is to say, if a gay group bans a Christian, I expect the school to go to bat for him.

AbaddonsReign on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Lesson: Take no public funding.

Daggett on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

This in a nutshell is why private ed as superior to public is a farce.
We the community have to be responsible for everyone, every child must have an education.
Private schools have no such responsibility, as a matter of fact, their responsibility is just tho opposite.
They must exclude in order to show their customers a better service.

Observation on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Some animals are more equal than others.

rogerb on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Gah. This ruling raises more hard questions and sticky situations than it answers!

Dark-Star on June 28, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Cut public funding to all these student groups.

Why are student groups needed?

portlandon on June 28, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Christians wouldn’t want to join the Campus Sissy Squad, for any reason. But the sissies, having convinced themselves that everyone should know and tolerate their proclivities, want to join the Christian group in order to annoy and destroy.

So in reality, it’s ever only going to cut one way.

Akzed on June 28, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Shouldn’t school groups just fund themselves anyway? I’d prefer that to having every group coming hat-in-hand to the school administrators.

hawksruleva on June 28, 2010 at 4:40 PM

For some reason I doubt the same precedent will be followed across the board. Some groups will be more protected than others.

amerpundit on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

+1
was thinking the same thing…

cmsinaz on June 28, 2010 at 4:41 PM

So, someone who is militantly anti-Islam could join a Student Muslim group and raise all sorts of hell within the group and the Student Muslim group could not discriminate against him? I doubt that very much.

In other news, it is a ‘Urinate on Christianity and in the Face Christians Law’.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 4:41 PM

I’m OK with this as long as the ruling is applied equally. That is to say, if a gay group bans a Christian, I expect the school to go to bat for him.

AbaddonsReign on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Survey says…..not a chance in hell this will happen.

angryed on June 28, 2010 at 4:41 PM

That is to say, if a gay group bans a Christian, I expect the school to go to bat for him.

AbaddonsReign on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Ha! Oh, you’re serious? No, forcing the group to accept said bigot (he’s a devout Christian!) would be harassment, homophobic, discriminatory, and everything else bad.

amerpundit on June 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

I don’t want the government funding any groups, discriminatory or not.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

What about minority groups that exclude whites? Could this be the end of the NAACP?

Grunt on June 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Maybe student groups shouldn’t be funded at all, and the groups can hold fund-raisers for what they need.

DrAllecon on June 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Public schools can deny funding to Christian student groups that bar gays

What about Muslim student groups that bar gays?

What about Muslim student groups that bar woman, or have them segregated, or make them hide themselves?

What about Muslim student groups that bar Jews?

Tav on June 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

I’m going to make the libertarian case here. Nobody has a right to government funding. The lesson here: if you don’t like corrupt, left-wing union thugs deciding how your money is spent, then don’t fund public schools.

joe_doufu on June 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Why are we giving money to special groups anyways? They don’t need money to meet.

Free Constitution on June 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

What about minority groups that exclude whites? Could this be the end of the NAACP? Grunt on June 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

The National Association for the Advancement of Certain People has many white members.

Not so with the Congressional Black Causus…

Akzed on June 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

So, if one does not wish funds from the school, they are free to pick and choose their members if a school does set an “all comers” policy.

Or better yet: private school!

Bubba Redneck on June 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

IIIII just don’t care. I was going to post something brillant but lost interest. We can’t even deny public funding to Acorn so I guess this is not a shocker

I’m still despondent from fedor’s loss to werdum

kangjie on June 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Looks like there will be a lot of boys joining the lesbian groups.

LincolntheHun on June 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

What if a gay but devoutly Christian student wanted to join the Christian group in this case? Assume that he agreed with their moral code that homosexuality is immoral, that it shouldn’t be practiced, etc. Is it okay to deny him membership, or does the fact that he technically doesn’t undermine their viewpoint mean the “all-comers” policy should apply there?

a faithful church would deny membership to someone such as this if they refused to acknowledge their sin and were in defiance of that even being a sin.

jp on June 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Set an example and get off the government teat.

Free Constitution on June 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

LincolntheHun on June 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Heh.

Free Constitution on June 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM

So now latino groups will have to admit white and black kids ?

macncheez on June 28, 2010 at 4:46 PM

So now latino groups will have to admit white and black kids ?

macncheez on June 28, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Some groups are more equal than others.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 4:46 PM

I’m sure this will apply to Muslim groups as well…?

labrat on June 28, 2010 at 4:47 PM

So I can finally get into the Lesb1an club and be invited to their socials? Suh-sweet!

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 4:47 PM

How on EARTH do you have a freedom of association, if there is no freedom to DIS-associate? You cannot have one without the other. The freedom of association is dead.

American Elephant on June 28, 2010 at 4:47 PM

a faithful church would deny membership to someone such as this if they refused to acknowledge their sin and were in defiance of that even being a sin.

jp on June 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

This reminds me of the controversy over the man convicted of child-sex crimes who wants to go to church. Parents in the church are outraged, even thought he man seems to have repented, and he’ll have a chaperone at the church. The terms of his parole state that he can’t be within X feet of children; church attendance would break that rule.

Is a church right to exclude a sinner if he has acknowledged his sin?

hawksruleva on June 28, 2010 at 4:47 PM

The “out” is you don’t have to accept someone who purpose is the “demise” of the group.
So a conservative Christian “democrat” could join a liberal democrat group and they can’t stop them. Since the purpose isn’t the demise of the democrat group.

Similarly, groups that are dedicated to expressing a viewpoint on a secular topic (for example, a political or ideological viewpoint) would have no basis for limiting membership based on religion because the presence of members with diverse religious beliefs would have no effect on the group’s ability to express its views

So a Christian movement to join liberal groups would be a good tactic…interesting, of course the opposite is true.

But so much for groups that are pro-abortion, I give you about 6 months before you are overrun by Christians.

right2bright on June 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM

American Elephant on June 28, 2010 at 4:47 PM

I’d say this is a lot like welfare. If you don’t want government telling you how to run your life, don’t take public dollars. Fund your group privately. How much would it really cost?

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM

The “no discriminating against gays” rule would violate the First Amendment because it imposes a certain viewpoint as a condition for public funds

Uh, for public funds? Really?

Why is public money used to fund any group?

Aquateen Hungerforce on June 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Under Alito’s framework, would it be okay for a school to deny funding to a student group that espouses racial supremacism of one kind or another?

I’m fine with that as long as they deny funding to all groups that promote racial supremacy regardless if it is white, black, brown, or any other ethnic group.

A good example would be La Raza.

What if a gay but devoutly Christian student wanted to join the Christian group in this case? Assume that he agreed with their moral code that homosexuality is immoral, that it shouldn’t be practiced, etc. Is it okay to deny him membership, or does the fact that he technically doesn’t undermine their viewpoint mean the “all-comers” policy should apply there?

I think in this case, its a tougher call but a Christian student group should accept the gay but devout Christian so long as he’s there for the purposes of discussing the Bible and Christ. If he’s there for other purposes, then no.

Conservative Samizdat on June 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM

How about public schools just stop funding all student groups? Let the parents keep the money and fund the groups their kids become involved with, if they want it.

Buddahpundit on June 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM

So what happens if a white supremacist wants to join a black student group to harass them?

A believe in white supremacy does not preclude someone from getting along with blacks. Many, many, many racists get along just fine with people from all other groups.

My experience is that extreme outsiders are often invited into groups if only to gawk.

BUT
The ruling does leave its ass-flap wide open as noted by AP.

The other obvious problem? If, as a condition of public funding, you can’t refuse to admit anyone, what happens if the campus Democrats decide to join the College Republicans en masse and take it over?

***

Under Alito’s framework, would it be okay for a school to deny funding to a student group that espouses racial supremacism of one kind or another?

Can such a group be denied funding now if they do not exclude based on race? I’ve seen more than one Black, Jewish or other white-supremacist. Also there are many black skinheads. Maybe some skinheads want to start a club on campus and don’t want to dillute themselves into 3 different groups of skins.

Weirder stuff goes on everyday.

The Race Card on June 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM

So a Christian movement to join liberal groups would be a good tactic…interesting, of course the opposite is true.

But so much for groups that are pro-abortion, I give you about 6 months before you are overrun by Christians.

right2bright on June 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Now you are thinking deviously. I like it.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Real Exit Question: Why are public funds used to fund any group in a public school? If people want to get extra-curricular, why can they not do so without funding or by funding it themselves?

Aquateen Hungerforce on June 28, 2010 at 4:51 PM

I’d say this is a lot like welfare. If you don’t want government telling you how to run your life, don’t take public dollars. Fund your group privately. How much would it really cost?

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM

The Race Card on June 28, 2010 at 4:51 PM

communist groups accept a capitalist?

journeyintothewhirlwind on June 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM

I’m fine with that as long as they deny funding to all groups that promote racial supremacy regardless if it is white, black, brown, or any other ethnic group.

I’m not as long as the groups allow everybody to join.

The Race Card on June 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM

The problem is solved when due to funding. Let private donations take care of a group.

Public funding of various groups is part of the overall problem in this country. Splitting hairs about who gets a piece of that pie isn’t resolving the root of the problem.

Private funds can (and will) support groups that are worthy of it’s own donations.

ButterflyDragon on June 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM

This seems problematic. How can the homosexual student prove he’s devout? To many, his sexuality would be proof that he isn’t, but many Christians accept no legalistic litmus test and would have a harder time making their case.

I personally believe it’s counter productive for a Christian group to exclude anyone, considering that Christians believe that all should be saved, but this doesn’t seen appropriate to me either.

Esthier on June 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Doesn’t this also mean that Muslim student groups will have to accept non Muslims and even Jews if they want to receive funding? I think it does.

bobnox on June 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM

HMMMMMMMMMMMM

ok im a libertarian, so basically, i’ll echo what has already been said:

“GOVERNMENT FUNDING” is NOT some inalienable right.

Therefore, the government gets to make the rules on stuff like this.

YOU CAN STILL HAVE A CHRISTIAN STUDENT GROUP THAT INCLUDES/EXCLUDES WHOEVER, YOU JUST DON’T GET GOVT FUNDING FOR IT

it actually sounds….. about right, in terms of taxation and actual freedom/responsibility….

picklesgap on June 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM

I don’t see much of a problem with this. The ruling only eliminates public funding for the group, which means the group is welcome to carry on as usual as long as they don’t accept public funding.

Christian and Jewish students ought to immediately join any Muslim student groups. At the very least, it will eliminate their public funding.

If played right, this could be extremely beneficial.

Gregor on June 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM

So what happens if a white supremacist wants to join a black student group to harass them? I’m sure the government will make the black group accept the white supremacist or cut off the funding.

Ooh, or how about a Muslim group that a Jewish student wants to join? Surely the group will have funding pulled unless it accepts the Jewish student, right?

For some reason I doubt the same precedent will be followed across the board. Some groups will be more protected than others.

amerpundit on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

No kidding. Man, they really made a hash out of this. Check out thefire.org, which has done a ton of pro bono work on precisely this type of case. They’ve intervened successfully on behalf of groups precisely like a Christian student org that wants to keep out practicing gays. They’ve taken a freedom of association approach, and have convinced some pretty lefty-dopey-changey administrations to see it their way. Until now, that is. Sheesh! They’ll be revisiting this before long when someone messes with one of their favored populations.

smellthecoffee on June 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Keeewwwwlllll…

Now we can join La Raza and MEChA and find out what the plan to take over the country really is.

(last day of vacation, I just couldn’t help myself)

Seven Percent Solution on June 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM

There are an awful lot of fine lines here that depend on what is PC more than anything else. The problem as I see it is that the school is funding the club. I am inclined to say that the group providing the funding for your club is allowed to set the rules. But I understand how such a strict view stifles free speech in general on campuses.

However, I think the ruling is ultimately wrong because this school rule violates freedom of religion. To me it seems that if a school is going to fund a religious club then that club has the right to practice it’s religion as it sees fit. The school has only two options when it comes to a religious club fund or don’t fund. But if you choose not to fund one religious club you can’t fund any.

Exit question: Under Alito’s framework, would it be okay for a school to deny funding to a student group that espouses racial supremacism of one kind or another?

AP, did you stop reading the Alito quote you posted once you reached the part you bolded?

Groups that do not engage in expressive association have no such right. Similarly, groups that are dedicated to expressing a viewpoint on a secular topic (for example, a political or ideological viewpoint) would have no basis for limiting membership based on religion because the presence of members with diverse religious beliefs would have no effect on the group’s ability to express its views.

It’s an obvious inference that he would include race in the above. But Alito is pointing out quite clearly this is a freedom of religion issue and not a “Let’s start a no blackies club guys! Alito is on our side because AP doesn’t know how to read!”

NotCoach on June 28, 2010 at 4:56 PM

I’m not as long as the groups allow everybody to join.

The Race Card on June 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM

5 bucks says that MeChA or the MSA throws out Mr. Whitey Jewish Guy within minutes of them showing up at a meeting and the school does nothing until it shows up on foxnews….

picklesgap on June 28, 2010 at 4:56 PM

I personally believe it’s counter productive for a Christian group to exclude anyone, considering that Christians believe that all should be saved, but this doesn’t seen appropriate to me either.

Esthier on June 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Christian groups want to discuss the bible and stuff; they don’t to debate a non-believer. So you include people who want to discuss it, exclude those who (even if unintentionally) take away time from the subject of the group.

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 4:56 PM

As a taxpayer, a gravely in public debt, taxpayer, I demand that they stop using my money to finance these groups. Period. Where in the Constitution does it say that the taxpayer funds these groups?

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM

This satire illustrates what might be the consequence of such court decisions: Neanderthal Wins Lawsuit Against Gay Group http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/04/neanderthal-wins-lawsuit-against-gay.html

Mervis Winter on June 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Since these are UC student groups, I wonder how that affects the UC Berkeley English class that made news a few years ago:

[A]n undergraduate English class on “The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance,” in the fall included in [its] class description a “warning” that “conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections.”

I would hope that classes that fulfill graduation requirements would be held to a higher standard than optional student groups on this matter.

calbear on June 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Pity the court isn’t paid, based on what it produces.

GarandFan on June 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Exit question: Under Alito’s framework, would it be okay for a school to deny funding to a student group that espouses racial supremacism of one kind or another?
=====================================================

In the normal Liberal Social Justice World,I would think
that the Radical Democrat would go to bat and to the mat,
for,racial supremacism in all its various and different
disgusting forms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on June 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Vet groups invaded by Code Pink persons

journeyintothewhirlwind on June 28, 2010 at 5:00 PM

But Alito is pointing out quite clearly this is a freedom of religion issue

No, actually he was pretty clear in saying that this is a freedom of expression issue.

Allahpundit on June 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM

Gays figure out their way of imposing their views is discrimination.

PrezHussein on June 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM

Therefore, the government gets to make the rules on stuff like this.

YOU CAN STILL HAVE A CHRISTIAN STUDENT GROUP THAT INCLUDES/EXCLUDES WHOEVER, YOU JUST DON’T GET GOVT FUNDING FOR IT

it actually sounds….. about right, in terms of taxation and actual freedom/responsibility….

picklesgap on June 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Well, let ALL groups be self-funding.

Anyway, such decisions only hasten the demise of the present public education establishment, which is a good thing.

ddrintn on June 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM

Fund, fund, fund, fund, fund! Sheesh! Stop all this government funding of “groups.”

They’re at school. Tell them that a major part of their education means learning how to do their own fund-raising for their own causes.

Edouard on June 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Oh my. Looks like the teacher of that class is now a professor at the University of Texas. Check out his bio for shout-outs to Hardball and Marxism.

calbear on June 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM

let’s kill two birds with one stone here. no public money to any group. It stops spending and it follows the law.

imagine that.

unseen on June 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM

the anti-woman, anti-gay, antio christian, anti-jewish mulism groups hardest hit.

unseen on June 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Ya know,If Elena Kagan gets confirmed,she’ll be in position for the next twenty years to cast her vote towards all this
Lefty Social a’Justice!!!!!!!

canopfor on June 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM

What if a gay but devoutly Christian student wanted to join the Christian group in this case? Assume that he agreed with their moral code that homosexuality is immoral, that it shouldn’t be practiced, etc. Is it okay to deny him membership, or does the fact that he technically doesn’t undermine their viewpoint mean the “all-comers” policy should apply there?

These aren’t the facts of the case. The CLS prohibits only “unrepentant” gays and lesbians from joining. A person who agrees with “their moral code” and that “it shouldn’t be practiced” qualifies as repentant.

alwaysfiredup on June 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Fund your group privately. How much would it really cost?

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM

I’d bet that simple use of school facilities counts as financial support in some fashion.

So the issue becomes not being able to function on campus in the way that other groups are encouraged to do.

TexasDan on June 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Christian groups want to discuss the bible and stuff; they don’t to debate a non-believer. So you include people who want to discuss it, exclude those who (even if unintentionally) take away time from the subject of the group.

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 4:56 PM

That sort of group shouldn’t be funded by the Law School anyways. The groups/activities that get funded should be those which would attract a relatively large amount of interest from the law students in general and which have activities which law students in general might attend. Funding a five person bible group goes against those principles–they really don’t need funding because they can do this on their own.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Fund, fund, fund, fund, fund! Sheesh! Stop all this government funding of “groups.”

They’re at school. Tell them that a major part of their education means learning how to do their own fund-raising for their own causes.

Edouard on June 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM

You got it. They all might be defunded by default before long anyway.

ddrintn on June 28, 2010 at 5:05 PM

so basically any jewish person or muslim person against as muslim or jewish group could seeking membership of that group and when denied or kicked out sue the local, state and federall government to stop funding that group.

Tea partiers unite. this ruling can if used correctly cut off all gov funds to all groups across the nation. It could if used correctly lead to the biggest decrease in federal spending ever seen.

unseen on June 28, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Private schools have no such responsibility, as a matter of fact, their responsibility is just tho opposite.
They must exclude in order to show their customers a better service.
Observation on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Or maybe, just maybe they offer a superior service to their customers as opposed to a failing service…

MechEng5by5 on June 28, 2010 at 5:06 PM

No, actually he was pretty clear in saying that this is a freedom of expression issue.

Allahpundit on June 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM

WTF is the “freeedom of expression”? Freedom to associate, or not associate, with a group that advocates a particular message is derived from the freedom of speech (First Amendment). This case is not related to the stablishment clause (also first amendment) at all.

alwaysfiredup on June 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM

A group with a larger number of students which have activities which students might attend could also be privately funded. Public funds for student groups is stupid.

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM
A group with a larger number of students which have activities which students might attend could also be privately funded. Public funds for student groups is stupid.

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

–It’s not a ton of money in almost all cases and is probably funded by an activities fee paid for by students in connection with their tuition.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM

All the big public universities have tons of these student groups, for every kind of “affinity group” you can imagine. If you’re a student organization, you get to decide what your parameters for membership are, and you can get limited funding from the student board that oversees all of these organizations, if you’re willing to put up with process. Naturally, the idiotic administrations of these places have catered to PC orthodoxy in their rulings about contested cases. The court has really messed this up, because now troublemakers, or just plain old mischief-makers will apply to whatever organization they want, and the poop will be hitting the fan right left and center. This ruling will prove impossible to follow; as noted above, it creates more hard cases than it resolves. Buy popcorn futures:

Looks like there will be a lot of boys joining the lesbian groups. LincolntheHun on June 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

smellthecoffee on June 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Constitution is being shat upon. Establishing a religion has become the democrats central focus.

PrezHussein on June 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Public funds for student groups is stupid.

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

My guess, it’s more of a mingled-funds issue. The school most likely charges a fee for student activities as part of its tuition. The school also receives some federal funds. Then the school has a process for allowing student groups to apply to receive some of the money appropriated for student activities. Since the money all goes into one big pot, it’s hard to say whether student activities are publicly funded or not.

alwaysfiredup on June 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

I’ll bet this one could go for 2,000 comments. It’s got everything: gays and Christians.

I’d be in favor of a blanket ban on public funding for student groups. Someone, somewhere, will always be unfairly excluded. We can’t take that chance. Oh, and saving the money.

Beagle on June 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

so does the NAACP now have to accept gay Latinos who want to expand the groups message to include the advancement of all races. Or they might also have to accept white guilters who believe the white race was the evil that destroyed the world?

unseen on June 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

the anti-woman, anti-gay, antio christian, anti-jewish mulism groups hardest hit.

unseen on June 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM

unseen: Yup,I see somebody a’los’n their heads over this!!!

canopfor on June 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Cut public funding to all these student groups.

Why are student groups needed?

portlandon on June 28, 2010 at 4:40 PM

I agree! The more time spent with their heads buried in a textbook the better, for them and for us.

I tell my college freshmen and sophomores that they need to spend two hours per day every day doing homework per hour of lecture. Every term I get the folks coming into my office wanting to know if they are going to pass. They know the answer, most are hoping against hope they are wrong. My first question to them is how often do you study. I have never had someone say to me two hours per day every day or longer; more times than not it is around an hour per week.

Suddenly these young adults get a slap in the face when they realize that all that gobbly-gook they are taught from first grade on up that they can achieve anything comes with a proviso that no one has ever bothered to tell them: if you work your butt off.

Less groups, more study, better for the kids and for society.

Bubba Redneck on June 28, 2010 at 5:12 PM

amerpundit on June 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Well, I am serious that I now expect that of universities. But I harbor no delusions that such a thing would happen in my hypothetical case. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

AbaddonsReign on June 28, 2010 at 5:13 PM

You can’t have a “anyone can join”, then you wouldn’t have girl scouts or boy scouts, you wouldn’t have a Christian or Jewish group…
There is nothing wrong with have “exclusive” groups, as long as the exclusivity is for a purpose “American”.
You start making rules, and pretty soon you have foolish rules like a plastic army man with a gun gets you suspended.
Discretion is what is needed, not rules.
A Christian group states no pro-abortion, then a person who is pro-abortion isn’t allowed to join…or a group that is pro-abortion, no anti should join.
Where Christian groups run into problems is not realizing that gays are not “un-Christian”, nowhere in the bible does it state that gays are not fully accepted…it’s the acts that are not accepted.
So a simple, gays are allowed, but homosexual behavior is not, would have sufficed. Since it is easy to point out homosexual behavior is deviant, according to the Christian teaching.

right2bright on June 28, 2010 at 5:16 PM

what this case does is set out any group that has any requirements for acceptance into that group to face legal fees that will bankrupt that group.

The SCOTUs is trying to balance a knife edge and it will not work. You either have freedom including the freedom discrimante or you have none.

If I was a group I would immediately cut off all funding form local state and federal funds to ensure my freedoms.

The Christians and other groups being discriminated against must wage an all out assult on all groups recieving federal, state and local aid and funds until the legal fees make all these groups cry uncle. Chirstians should immediately apply for acceptance into gay groups with the intention of not the demise of these groups but changing the message that all sex is not good sex. And waiting for marriage to engage in sex.

unseen on June 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM

It’s a stupid decision by the 4 brain-dead liberal justices and Kennedy, who just wants to be liked. Of course students groups will use this ruling to disrupt each other’s partisan and ideological activities. Of course men will try to join lesbian groups and Jews will join Muslim groups. Of course it’s going to cause rancor and conflict and a second trip to the Court. Liberals are dumb. So are liberal Supreme Court justices.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Since the money all goes into one big pot, it’s hard to say whether student activities are publicly funded or not.

alwaysfiredup on June 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Perhaps, but it’s, again, stupid to charge people money for groups they may never ever join. It’s a lot like teacher’s union getting money from teachers who aren’t part of the union. If groups want to exist, either charge their members who are, you know, members or raise funds privately.

Simple problem. Simple solution.

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Public funds for student groups is stupid.

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

No it’s not…it teaches leadership, planning, organization, fund raising, etc.
Math clubs, language clubs, chess clubs, science clubs, car clubs, woodworking clubs, many great clubs.
You hear about one or two that causes problems, and you want to toss out everything, which is the simple route. Rather then placing the responsibility on the people we pay big bucks for…they should work it out and find a solution. The solution isn’t, “Get rid of them all”, nor is it “Let everyone join”…it take effort, and some mistakes but the clubs are important part of a lot of kids lives.

right2bright on June 28, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I would ban all clubs that seek to divide, socially divide.
No Hispanic club, no Black club, no Christian club, no Jewish club…but this is where it gets tricky, allow political clubs.
As a start…

right2bright on June 28, 2010 at 5:24 PM

right2bright on June 28, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Fundraising is quite the character builder also.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Public funds for student groups is stupid.

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

No it’s not…it teaches leadership, planning, organization, fund raising, etc.
Math clubs, language clubs, chess clubs, science clubs, car clubs, woodworking clubs, many great clubs.

right2bright on June 28, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Maybe they could also learn things like self-reliance and appealing to a “market” if they had to fund their own groups.

ddrintn on June 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM

right2bright on June 28, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Said get rid of public funding; not the groups themselves. They can figure ways to pay for themselves.

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM

No, actually he was pretty clear in saying that this is a freedom of expression issue.

Allahpundit on June 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM

No, Alito makes a clear distinction between secular clubs and religious clubs and how religious clubs CAN discriminate and secular clubs can not.

But for religious groups, the situation is very different. This point was put well by a coalition of Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Sikh groups: “Of course there is a strong interest in prohibiting religious discrimination where religion is irrelevant. But it is fundamentally confused to apply a rule against religious discrimination to a religious association.” Brief for American Islamic Congress et al. as Amici Curiae 3.

NotCoach on June 28, 2010 at 5:30 PM

As it is these groups are like mini-NPRs.

ddrintn on June 28, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Observation on June 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

My that was some good THC you were smoking. My wife and I home schooled our children. You had no responsibility for them and still don’t since they are very well employed. So don’t torture the electrons with nonsense.

chemman on June 28, 2010 at 5:33 PM

I want to join the girls’ cheerleader squad. I demand access to the SAME dressing areas and showers.

Obviously, that would never happen. It’s like the situation in Little League baseball. Girls must be allowed to play, but try signing a 12 year old boy up for girls softball.

TexasAg03 on June 28, 2010 at 5:34 PM

5 bucks says that MeChA or the MSA throws out Mr. Whitey Jewish Guy within minutes of them showing up at a meeting and the school does nothing until it shows up on foxnews….

picklesgap on June 28, 2010 at 4:56 PM

“Mr. Whitey Jewish Guy?”

WTF? Who talks like that?

Also, student organizations are nothing new on campuses across the country. Most follow the rules, even those with whom you disagree.

I think many people back down too easily when confronted with rights violations, just like your hypothetical “Mr. Whitey.”

The Race Card on June 28, 2010 at 5:35 PM

One thing for sure.This knife cuts both ways.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 5:36 PM

I would ban all clubs that seek to divide, socially divide.
No Hispanic club, no Black club, no Christian club, no Jewish club…but this is where it gets tricky, allow political clubs.
As a start…

right2bright on June 28, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Apparently to start a Piss on the Constitution club. You have the right to be right. Use it.

The Race Card on June 28, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2