Interesting Case

[Beavah 205]

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW v. LEO P. MARTINEZ, ET AL.,

 

Scheduled to be argued Monday in front of the Supreme Court. There was a reasonable editorial in today's Wall Street Journal (maybe someone can copy the editorial in?; I was readin' the paper edition).

 

At issue is whether a public educational institution can deny recognition as an "official student group" (with attendant benefits of access to da university at privileged rates, access to funding through student activity fees, etc.) even though it excludes some students from voting membership and leadership positions who do not subscribe to da organization's statement of values.

 

Arguments in da merits briefs are in many ways very similar to da arguments made by different parties on da scouter.com forums. As is often the case with these things, the plaintiff's side (the students) has been relatively poorly lawyered, garnering summary judgment against at the district court level, a relatively brief treatment by the 9th Circuit affirming, and a somewhat weak brief before SCOTUS. Hard for the little guy to be able to afford the same level of representation as the State, eh? So it's interestin' that the court reached out to take this case.

 

It'll be interestin' to see how da oral arguments go. There's some room for da court to dodge or decide on narrow technical grounds, but I'm not feelin' it. Could also give 'em a chance to reverse or scale back Dale. But this court has been hard to figure, eh? Sometimes they seem to stretch a bit. This case could go so far as to establish a constitutional right to school sponsorship of a religious organization on an equal-access/equal protection/expressive association basis. Be interestin' to see if any of the amicus briefs are bold enough to ask for that. Shame if they didn't.

 

Anyway, closest thing we've seen in a while to da issues that have been raised here by some of da regular gadflies. Not quite the same issue, eh? In this case, what's being litigated is whether the school is required to sponsor/"recognize" such a group, not whether it is prohibited from sponsoring. Of course there are also cognizable differences between a graduate school and a K-12 school.

 

Perhaps one for da group to watch nonetheless?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Oak Tree 15]

There are some interesting parallels, but there are several important distinctions. It's almost like opposite-world.

 

In the BSA case, the assumption is that public schools are prohibited (under the equal protection clause, perhaps) from limiting membership based on religion. In this case, the question is whether public universities must recognize student groups that have some restrictions based on religion.

 

One big difference is whether the institution is exerting the control (as in a BSA chartered organization) or merely recognizing a group. If it's just recognizing a group, can the government choose to deny recognition based on membership policies surrounding a religious viewpoint? In my view, the university's interest in ensuring that all officially recognized groups are open to all members of the community would be a sufficient reason to have such a policy. It certainly doesn't seem like a required policy. But if the university allowed other groups (a Married Student Association, say) to restrict membership, it seems like they would have to allow this group to do so as well.

 

I don't see how this would really make much difference to the actual organization involved. I'm sure they can thrive whether their statement of faith is binding or is just advisory.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, in da sturm and drang over this in da media this week, I sorta liked this article from the balanced, thoughtful perspective.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041602027.html

 

Beavah

[Gunny2862 11]

Don't have access to the WSJ but found the brief:

 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/08-1371.pdf

[skeptic 993]

Thank you Beavah for the link to the article. I agree, it weighs the issue very evenly, and makes a number of very important points regarding the broader consequences.

[studentscout 11]

From that article, "We cannot cage faith and claim that we are a pluralistic society."

 

I'd rather cage faith than be caged by it.

 

The case weighs the goal of diversity of views against public support for a group that restricts diversity. Seems clear to me. The decision may be to promote diversity of views by requiring public support of groups that oppose diversity.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

interesting thoughts Studentscout, but if a society cages anything, then everything CAN be caged

 

People get to beleive anything they wish, as long as those beliefs do not deprive another from theirs, and I know that is prelude to a lot...