Student group wants funding — but bans homosexuals
July 23, 2009 by Tom D'AgostinoPosted in: From the Courts, In this week's e-newsletter
When a Christian student group bans homosexuals and a school policy prohibits bias based on sexual orientation, something has to give.
A student group called the Christian Legal Society wanted official recognition and its piece of a student activity fees funding pie.
But it ran into trouble because it excluded non-Christians and homosexuals.
Citing its open membership and nondiscrimination policies, the University of Montana School of Law refused to provide funding to the group.
Did the refusal violate the group’s First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion?
No, the court said.
The school had a right to enforce its open membership and nondiscrimination policies. It had a legitimate interest in making sure all students could participate in student activities it supported, and its policies burdened the group’s expressive activity only incidentally – if at all.
Cite: Christian Legal Society v. Eck
Should student groups be denied funding because they exclude homosexuals? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.
Loading ...
June 4th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Student groups should be denied funding if they exclude students because of their intrinsic traits, such as homosexuality.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Students who violate the non-discrimination policy of a campus should not only be excluded from receiving any funds from the university but should be considered an unrecognized student group and therefore not be eligible for benefits such as a faculty adviser or meeting space.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
That implies that it is an intrinsic trait, which is arguable.
Should a student NAACP chapter be denied funding because it chooses to exclude an Aryan Nation follower as a member?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
While I do not believe that homosexuality is an intrinsic trait, I do not believe that anyone should be excluded from participating in any group activity for any reason as long as the person is serious about wanting to be a part of the group and not there simply to cause problems for the group.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
If we began denying funding to groups that ban based on any thing we must ban funding to all who ban. That means the Gay and Lesbians can not ban hetrosexuals, Hispanics can not ban nonhispanics, Blacks can not ban non blacks. The list could go on forever with single gender clubs and any other special interest group. The reason we have clubs is so that people with special interest can gather and discuss thier common bond.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I would like to hear the perspective of the Christian Student Group. Is this story based on a legitimate refusal of people based on sexual orientation or is it based on an assumed refusal based on the fact that this group is labeled Christian. Discrimination can certainly run both ways.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I applaud the University of Montana School of Law for its stance. Much lip – service is given to the concept that we as a nation are goverened by the “rule of law”. The Christian Legal Society, in violating the non – discrimination policy upheld by the University of Montana are, in fact guilty of marginalizing their own “legal” status at the University (not to mention that of the rest of the country) for the sake of their own personal greed. A law school, particularly, should not send the kind of message thatg the Christian Legal Society advocates.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I would expect a Christian group to have an open enrollment in order to share the Gospel with as many people as possible…especially non-Christians and unrepentant homosexuals. I am more concerned that a school might require Christian groups to accept HOMOSEXUALITY in order to be recognized and/or funded.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I applaud the University of Montana School of Law for its stance. Much lip – service is given to the concept that we as a nation are goverened by the “rule of law”. The Christian Legal Society, in violating the non – discrimination policy upheld by the University of Montana is, in fact, guilty of marginalizing their own “legal” status at the University for the sake of their own personal greed. A law school, in particular, should not send the kind of message that the Christian Legal Society advocates.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Muslim student groups are more likely to deny homosexuals than Christian student groups. In the Quran, homosexuality is punishable by death. Would a Muslim student group ever get refused funding? No.
I’m guessing this Christian group was targeted by homosexual activists. Though, I think Christian groups should allow anyone, regardless of sexual leanings or beliefs. Perhaps being more open would allow for transformed lives. Though, leadership in such groups should be restricted to members who uphold the beliefs and standards the group exhaults.
As for funding, as long as the rules are applied universally and undiscriminantly then it would be fair to withold funding.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Colleges that boast their diversity policies should make sure they are not discrimanting against students or groups that are “Christian.” This story sounds very bias, and should have included at least a statement from the “Christian” group. I don’t see a problem with ensuring officers of an organization recognize themselves as “Christian” while allowing members of any type to join.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Are other student groups (perhaps a Muslim student group) allowed to exclude people of other faiths such as Buddhist and Jewish students and are they allowed to exclude homosexuals? As long as the rules are the same for all student groups I think it is fine to deny funding.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
To the people who didn’t like the “intrinsic” thing—Will you people never get it?? One does not “choose” to be attracted to members of one’s own sex. You may choose to adopt a gay LIFESTYLE; you may choose to be flamboyant; you may choose to dress up in drag, but you DO NOT choose whom you’re going to be sexually attracted to. Why not get this once and for all.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I wonder, why the “something that has got to give” is supposed to be the “Christian” organization? How is this organization any different than a “same-sex” fraternity or sorority that would exclude someone of the opposite sex? This case seems similar to many that have been heard regarding BYX and the recognition of their group as an official campus organization…(see BYX vs. University of Florida) where the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the University of Florida would have to accept and admit the BYX fraternity as a campus organization with all rights and privilges afforded to such organizations. I think Universities need to be the ones that are more open. Courts are ruling against universities who stifle the religious rights of the first amendment, and I think they could be on somewhat “shaky” legal ground.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Should a Muslim student group be permitted to exclude Christians or members of other groups who do not embrace their teaching? Should the campus Democratic club be forced to accept Republicans as student leaders? The fundamental issue here is religious and political freedom and when university offers a public form for some groups and points of view. Homosexual practice is a complex matter and to label it as instrinsic to human personality is an assumption on which many, including scholars, disagree. My fear is that with rulings like this, we are not as far away from totalitarianism as we would like to think.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
People do not like the “intrinsic” thing because not everyone believes it is intrinsic – they believe that they may have an urge or yearning for the same sex but that it is still a choice. They do not believe someone is born gay just as much as you believe someone IS born gay. I am not sure which I believe but wanted to make the point that this is your opinion – that is why people don’t “get it”. It is not a fact. That’s sort of not the point anyway. Whether it is a choice or not to be gay, should homosexuals be excluded from student groups which receive funding is the question. They shouldn’t be excluded even if it is a choice…if that is the rule for ALL student groups receiving funding.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Students have a right to free speech that doesn’t directly endanger someone. They don’t have a right to university money. The university is quite correct in stipulating that it’s money go to activities that all students can participate in. Students have a right to form clubs that exclude many students, but they can’t do it with university money.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
37″Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Why was Jesus put on the earth, for the rightous? or sinners? Always welcome all into the lords hands, be good Christians and invite all no matter what they believe……or do.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
First, I think it would be helpful to be more aware of basic human nature. If I start a chess club, would I have to worry about people joining the chess club who really hate chess? Well, I might if I had a policy that didn’t allow people who hated chess to join. If the so-called Christian group had never stated such a policy, would this be an issue? Probably not.
I also think many here are missing a larger point. I believe that if an organization is taking student-services money, they should be required to allow anyone who pays those fees to join. Why should a student be forced to pay a fee to support a group that the student is not allowed to join? This is just basic fairness about how student fees are spent, and really has nothing to do with the current social wars.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
There are some issues being conflated here.
At the university in question, no one is denying the Christian group’s right to exist. That would be silly. What is being denied is funding from the student body for a group which excludes members in a way which runs counter to the charter/constitution of the student body.
If the Fascists for Buddha want to exclude left-handed feminist Nihilists, no prob: they just have to reject the student body funds. Now, if the campus administratsia says, “The Fascists for Buddha will be expelled for their counterrevolutionary ideas!” that’s a problem, and I’ll come and fight for them.
Any conservative orthodox religious group which complains that they’re being discriminated against on university campuses … I don’t lose a lot of sleep over them, really. They’re not only not holier than an atheist like me, they are positively malignant. There are a number of Very Special Communities which will welcome them, which will mournfully (but gleefully) excommunicate socialist atheist accordionists. Here’s a place where everyone could take a lesson from the Larouche followers … in their own completely batty way, they have been known to have a sense of humor.
“Peace Out, Y’all!” Al Gore’s head, from Futurama.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:52 am
I think one of the issues that isn’t covered is whether or not any homosexuals or non-Christians WANTED to join this organization. Folks have provided some great examples of other organizations that might ban people who are different and I agree that the university needs to be consistent with its funding requirements. Personally, I wouldn’t be interested in joining a group I knew would be discriminatory but I do recognize that there are rabble-rousers who would join just to stir up trouble.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I think that the issue is not that the club in question is Christian or that those excluded are homosexual, but rather that the club is in violation of clearly published university regulations. If the group wishes to receive student activity fees funding, which is generated from a student fee that all students pay and have no choice but to do so, then the group must be open to all interested students. That is only fair. The university cannot ask students to pay for services and groups and then tell them that they may not participate in said services or groups.
If the club wishes to limit its membership, it is free to do so, but would forego the student fee funds. No one is saying that they cannot have a special interest group, or that they must alter their belief system.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:57 am
It was my understanding that a university must distribute funds collected by mandatory student fees in a viewpoint neutral manner. It would seem to me that state universities like the Univ. of Montana risk violating the right of free expression if they deny funding to a group because of the viewpoint it advocates. The same would apply if they require students to pay into a system whose official policies prohibit religious student groups from access to those student activity fees.
To insist that a religious student organization not differentiate on issues of faith is to ask that religious group to give up their religious identity. To deprive the student group of access to funding is a heavy-handed attempt to enforce an ideology – and wraps that ideological club in the velvet wrap of “tolerance.”
June 5th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Would the Gill Foundation and all those who are supported by this group be willing to share their funding with Christians and their causes?
June 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I see this question as part of the larger, open access campus debate.
I think one might consider drawing the dollar line between attendance and membership. Admittance to certain meetings and functions of any organization should, of course, be open to the entire campus community. Membership is a more selective status. Forcing membership in an organization, as others on the board have so weel pointed out, is a tricky issue.
Should the Black Enterprenuers be forced to open their membership to whites and possibly lose control of the organization and suffer the defeat of its purpose? Decidely not. Should there be public access to at least a few talks given by BE invited guests? I think we can all agree that answer is yes, providing one can behave politely.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Actually, a really robust Black Entrepreneurs club should welcome “whites” as members and officers. Just how “black” do you have to be, anyway? The idea that “whites” can’t be Black enough to foster and promote entrepreneurial activity in the Black community … um. You just can’t advance that argument very far without starting to sound pretty foolish. Try it. Can’t be done.
The only counter example to my argument that I know of would be the bizarre story of Rajneeshpuram in central Oregon, back in the 1980s … but guess what: the Rajneeshis actually did get thrown out eventually, and Antelope OR is Antelope OR once again.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:07 am
To all who do not believe one is not BORN Gay, were you NOT BORN STRAIGHT? OR DID YOU YOU HAVE TO LITERALLY CHOOSE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN TO BE STRAIGHT?
IT WORKS THE SAME BOTH WAYS. IT IS NO MORE A CHOICE FOR GAYS THAT IT WAS A CHOICE FOR YOU STRAIGHTS, AND IF IT WAS A CHOICE, THEN YOU ARE SAYING YOU WERE BORN BISEXUAL.
HELLO?
June 10th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Interesting!
June 10th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
And this is why student fees and tuition as well as public funds should not go to fund student organizations via mandatory activity fees and such. Eliminate all organization funding, and let students decide on their own as individuals which groups with whom they would like to freely associate (see 1st Amendment of Constitution) based on membership fees. It is reprehensible that funding should be based on a legitimate disagreement over the morality of certain behaviors. Christian groups should be free from interference by fascist administrators with leftist agendas, and homosexual groups should be free from interference by Christians who wish to convert them. This decision opens the door for the reverse to happen too. Will the administrators now allow Christians to join homosexual groups, regardless of their attitude about homosexuality?
The trouble here is that nondiscrimination policies are being applied in a DISCRIMINATORY FASHION. One groups gets preferential treatment, the other does not. Allowing for the violation of the basic rights of one group opens to the door for the others to do the same to you.
This is what you get from a society that has been taught that discrimination is wrong, but for the most part is far too stupid to realize WHY.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
All most all colleges have groups, organizations or areas that restrict membership such as sororities, fraternities, football teams, basketball teams, restrooms, Miss “whatever”, Mr. “whatever”, fitness programs, dorms, sex education, and other clubs. Several of these are based on gender identify! Actually most colleges’ support racism toward Caucasians! How many colleges allow white scholarship programs? Black or other is okay! How about just a white club to mach black clubs or fraternities?
June 10th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I wonder why gays and lesbians are protected by all sorts of special laws and regulations, while polygamists are not protected and even frequently prosecuted. This seems to be completely unjust since polygamists also represent a sexual minority. Clearly, the forces of political correctness favor only those sexual minority unions which can not give birth to a child. Based on these observations one concludes that the forces of political correctness promote genocide.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I hope the university’s non discrimiatory policy applies to all clubs and organizations. For example, fraternities need to accept women, Society of Women Engineers and sororities need to accept men in order to receive funding. On the same token, Students For Choice club should open to pro-life people and vice versa.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I’m still mulling over Julian’s comment about “lip service.”