CLS v. Martinez: Christian discrimination
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.
This is exactly why Christians ought to affiliate themselves in the private sector only. When the Church–a fellowship of ‘citizens’ to a SPIRITUAL kingdom– seeks a formal and official relationship with the state–>that is, the kingdom, or government, OF THIS WORLD; then the body of Christ (terminology for the Church) is bound to those ‘earthly’ or ‘legal’ contracts…
If the Students at this school want to have ‘a christian organization’, then let them have one apart from receiving aid from the state–that way no charges can be justified against their practice of discrimination.
If you are a Christian, then you ought to know the scriptures that assure the believer of the blessings God promises. Why seek to be recognized by the school as an organization–or by the sate for that matter–if your goal and purpose is to promote and proliferate the teachings of Jesus and practice thereof?
I write with boldness here because I am convinced that there are many who want to do the will of God, but go about doing it the “worldly way”…
We–Christians–have been blessed with the Word of God and the discerning power of the Holy Spirit and should take these as our most valuable resources…
And if I argued on the legality of this case…I’d have to say that NO organization should be allocated tax-paid-funds if it seeks to promote one ideology above another–this all goes back to there being too much government in society…People should have to pay for their own expenses out of their own pockets–>and that is a Christian belief advocated by Paul himself!!!!!
“NO organization should be allocated tax-paid-funds if it seeks to promote one ideology above another”
Would you do away with all student organizations then? If not, how do you define which ones are “promoting” something?
Take, for example, the University of Pittsburgh. We have hundreds and hundreds of student organizations. Many of them are clearly advocacy organizations, advocating everything from civil liberties to vegetarianism, to .
http://www.sorc.pitt.edu/search/orgSearch.asp
Funding for these groups is based on the premise that these groups add educational value to the university. A university is, after all, a forum of ideas and information. What is your theory? Because I don’t think a university or other school would be as valuable to society without opportunities like these.
Oh i most certainly would revoke all public funds from such organizations–but before I address this, let me first address what seems to be the warrant of your argument.
First, I mean publicly funded funds…If a private donor seeks to aid a university with money or goods and wishes those to benefit be a particular group, then they ought to finance the group directly…our tax dollars should go to fund those things we can all agree on either through majority vote or absolute necessity–ie pot holes, disaster aid, government worker salary, ect..
As to your hypothetical that I suppose all organizations be “done away with” I believe you severely misunderstand my premise and argument. Allow me to clarify a few things…
I’m not advocating the ‘ending’ of student led organizations, but merely advocating the end of their “hand out” from the government. Now if a state voted on such issues directly–that is to allow government funded universities to allocate its “tax-paid-funds” to its discretion, then the battle is between the people who voted and those who enforce such laws…
Since I do not advocate the end of such organizations, I must then explain–better–what I do advocate. Such organizations do go to as you put it “add educational value to the university”. The degree of that value is highly debatable–especially if certain organizations promote ideals that are contrary to the virtue of wisdom or knowledge, but that is still a judgment call one makes upon entering in membership…
They still can operate as functioning organizations without the help of “my tax dollar”—And in the case that they cannot, then they ought not to be. period. The premise behind an organization led by the student body is that there are several that fellowship on common grounds…it would be difficult to fund with private finances, yes, and especially if it was funded by students alone…but is that not the sacrifice one takes to advance his convictions/passions?
So my opinion is no tax dollars for secular ideology…if you want to promote or organize, then do it on your dime. If the government would follow this, then we wouldn’t be wasting even more money with court cases–had this particular organization been a “privately” funded one, then the judge would throw out the case…but then again, this is California…
I see what your underlying point is now, and I have a few major problems with it.
The first is that funding is crucial for a lot of these programs. The difference between the school (high school or state college) paying the bills is the factor that will decide whether students have the opportunity or not. Students are, basically by definition, members of society with limited resources.
Second, while some students may be able to fund their groups privately, that system would disproportionately hurt poor students and students in poor areas.
Third, funding is not the only issue implicated in the Constitution. Use of the facilities for meetings, events, and advertising is also a Constitutional issue. We can’t bleach out anything that is potentially controversial, and even if we could, is that the point of education? What I’m saying is, even if we did what you suggest, and un-funded every student group in existence, there would still be challenges and issues for who gets to use school rooms and facilities.
Fourth, I disagree with the philosophical approach that says no tax payer should have any portion of his taxes pay for a program that he neither benefits from or agrees with. Libraries could not keep the lights on if their only funding came from the people who frequent them. This is the entire purpose of government – to pool resources for the betterment of society. You don’t get to be a conscientious objector to paying taxes because you disagree with how some of them are used, and just because you pay some doesn’t mean you get to veto programs. If we did adopt your approach in this issue, the government would be paralyzed to pay for anything. Defense spending would be out, border security would be slashed, all government agencies would be defunded. Masses of people object to each of these, but thank goodness in the real world we don’t have to get everyone to agree before we spend money on something.
Fifth, everyone does pretty much agree on this point of funding school groups. No, not everyone would support the Student Secular Alliance just like not everyone would support the Christian Legal Society. But almost everyone agrees that the educational experience (and society as a whole, indirectly) benefits the most from open forums of ideas, encouraged and facilitated by the public. You seem like a free-market sympathizer to me. Philosophers who apply free market principles to the intellectual world say that the best results come from the marketplace of ideas when there is interaction and competition. I believe your view is in the severe minority here, and I bet I could find more people who oppose spending taxpayer money on nuclear weapons.
Last, let’s just remember that university students are not just leeches on society, sucking its resources and diverting them to support objectionable advocacy. Students in California, Pennsylvania, and wherever else pay to study at universities. Among those payments is also typically an activity fee. There is not a straight line of funding from cranky taxpayers’ pockets to the college ACLU and Campus Crusade, but Constitutional issues are implicated because we are talking about public schools.
Oh my good sir, you still take me too far…
My “philosophy”–as you call it–is suitable for the education system<–that is to say, these colleges or universities. You argued quite extensively against such other things like not paying taxes for libraries, or defense, or nuclear weapons…this debate is about the university–My 'philosophy' is not all-encompassing.
So those things aside; you did mention the valid point that funding is crucial and 'students' are appropriately defined as a part of society.
You said that poor students would be "disproportionately hurt" if those students had to pay from their pockets just like any other student.
This is where you get into my philosophies that ARE all encompassing:
To be a "student" is a privilege and a luxury–not a right. While you may say that we are granted those rights: life, liberty, 'the pursuit of' happiness or property—there is no where in the Constitution where the individual has the right to "occupation"…
If one believes in such a premise, then you are establishing "entitlement"
No one is entitled to a "higher education" like universities or colleges provide. They may pursue it, they may be awarded funds based on performance or charity or lottery, but to be a "student" at the college level is something that one must attain–in some way–on their own.
If you allow me to operate on this premise, then I must have you understand my address to your argument against using public(university) facilities/property.
If it is a state university, then by default, the property is owned by "the people" and public land is used by the public, so therefore any and all whom [pay taxes] to the state should be allowed to use the property–~~As long as it doesn't restrain the rights of other citizens.
The university is populated by public citizens who then, in turn, form "secular student run organizations"
Even though they are at a public school and are tax paying citizens, they should forfeit their "rights of entitlement" to public funds, BECAUSE they are now operating a secular entity(and one of luxury not necessity) that promotes 'their' ideology, 'their' purposes, 'their' cause<—Not the (voted on) State's cause.
Tyler, I think our disagreement hinges on what you addressed in your last paragraph. What you call “their cause,” referencing the specific goals of any particular group, is really just one part of the larger, legitimate state goal of higher education in general.
When you label it the way you do, it makes me think that you have a very low view of higher education. It makes me think that you believe education should be about indoctrination of information instead of the interaction of ideas. It makes me think that you believe education is about facts instead of about thoughts. Maybe that’s why we come at this issue from two different angles. I think that promoting higher education is first of all, a crucial goal of the state. It may not be constitutionally or morally required, and students may not be entitled, but it is far more important to our future as a country than any other activity that the government engages in. Second, it is best served when students are actively involved with issues, ideas, and activities. This is why we as a society have decided to spend so many billions of dollars on extra-curricular activities from lacrosse to debate. Learning isn’t just something you do sitting in a chair in a classroom listening to a lecture.
So the way I see it, the “voted on state cause” is higher education, and it includes the idea that there should be an emphasis on ideas and thoughts instead of facts and figures and it includes the idea that students should be actively involved in their learning outside the classroom as much as possible. That cause includes, then, all the products that result from it – the student ACLU, the Campus Crusaders, the Vegan club, and whoever else may come along. It would be absurd and counterproductive to require a popular vote approving each particular organization when formed to see if it supported the majority’s goals. The counterproductivity results because new ideas and progress are always initially minority ideas. No idea storms into existence with popular approval, but if we have a system that encourages ideas and does not discriminate based on their content or the majority’s stingy desire to censor, then we will enjoy much more progress. Could you spell out in practical terms what you think the “voted on state cause” of higher education is and what it should entail?
I must commend you both on your civility and rigor. Do continue, as truth will out.