Supreme Court to decide: Can Christian group exclude gays and lesbians?
December 22, 2009 by Claire KnightPosted in: From the Courts, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Uncategorized
Can universities refuse to recognize and fund Christian student clubs if members exclude gays, lesbians and non-Christians?
The U.S. Supreme Court will answer the question this term, as justices have agreed to review Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (No. 08-1371).
The saga started in 2004 when the Christian Legal Society brought action against the University of California’s Hastings College because the university refused to recognize and fund the student group.
University officials said the school failed to recognize and fund the club because it excludes non-Christians, gays and lesbians, noting the group requires members to sign a “statement of faith” which says members agree to:
- commit to share a “devotion to Jesus Christ” and
- abstain from a “sexually immoral lifestyle” that is inconsistent with the groups’ beliefs.
Requiring all members to sign the statement of faith violates the school’s non-discrimination policy, school officials say.
But members of the student club argue they have the right to require members to share common core religious beliefs.
The district court ruled in the university’s favor in 2006. That decision was upheld by the appellate court earlier this year. The high court is expected to hear the case in March — and a decision is expected by June.
HigherEdMorning delivers the latest HigherEd news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HigherEd professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HigherEdMorning!
Tags: Christian Legal Society, University of California Hastings College
Loading ...
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
The title of this story is deceptive. Of course the group can exclude whomever it chooses. But they certainly don’t have a right to force the school to pay for their discrimination. “We’re Christians, so we don’t have to play by the rules” seems to be the philosophy here.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Unfortunately, Erik, like most others, have it all wrong. It is about discrimination, but discrimination AGAINST any religious (especially Christ centered) clubs or organizatons. I work at a major university and 90% of the clubs are discriminatory in one manner or another. They have rules, objectives and statements of “belief” and “behavior” that new members must meet. Some must even meet requirements of race, ethnicity, educational level (GPA), major, or any number of “parameters” before being allowed to join. However, as I have watched this university over the last 11 years, I noticed that those clubs that embrace a Christian ethic are the ones that are rediculed the most, discriminated against the most, and in general laughed at the most. What ever happened to an “open mind”? Easy enough to tell. The universities have narrowed the student’s thinking by supporting those clubs and organizations that meet their own “standards and requirements” of what they want the club to be rather than the what the members want the club to be. Then they use school support to systematically discriminate against those clubs, such as the club mentioned above, into oblivion or school supported redicule. It is only too real. I have seen it on numerous occasions. Universities are not the “open minded” type. Their minds are narrow and discriminatory of their own right. And that’s too bad because this school has just proven that they do not support freedom of religion, freedom of an opposing view or belief, or freedom of the individual or group to determine it’s own beliefs and guidelines. If this had been an ethnic, gender or sexual oriented club, I’m sure they would have gotten everything they asked for. Instead it is a Christ oriented club, and they have to fight the battle of narrow minded university officials who do not believe in the right of self determination EXCEPT as determined by them.
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Larry is confused. I work with a major university and all of the ethnic and sexually oriented clubs do NOT require their members to be part of the ethnic group or to have the sexual proclivity in question. They simply have to be interested in the subject matter. My problem is with a supposedly Christian group that would exclude non-Christians and homosexuals. That is a very un-Christian thing to do. If there are non-Christians who are interested in Christianity why can’t they be part of the group? I think all exclusionary groups should be unsupported. Especially Christian groups that have many, many churches who can support their activities – why do they need student funding? Only if their activities would be questionable in the eyes of an actual church. IOW, hate groups.
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
We’ve gotten ourselves so tied up in knots in this country that we are choking our freedoms to death. Student groups are formed so students can interact with other students who share the same interests or beliefs. There should be no need to ban ANYONE from ANY group – thus keeping your funding intact. A student who joins a group but doesn’t share the interest or belief is nothing but a hypocrit. They truly think they are making a statement and standing up for their own rights but have no respect for the rights of others. In the case of the homosexual students, why not join or form your own group of Christian gays and lesbians? In the case of the Christian Legal Society, why do members need to sign a pledge in the first place? There’s room for everybody and life is too short to live angry – especially if you call yourselves Christians!
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Larry’s comment hits the mark. Taking the liberty to paraphrase much of what he says: Many take great pride in being known as “free-thinkers”, “liberal”, and “open to new ideas” except when confronted with thoughts and ideas that conflict with their personal view of reality. Yet another way to express it: Many contend that exclusive claims to truth are illegitimate except their exclusive claim that there are no exclusive truths. Virtually everyone to whom I have ever expressed this logic tried (and failed) to justify their self-hypocrisy.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I don’t think Larry works at any “major” university and the rhetoric he and his supporters espouse is clearly born in some right-wing think tank. It uses the tactics of so-called “scientific creationists” in attempting to reverse the terms of an argument for an unscientific belief by saying Darwinism is only a “theory” as if calling them both by the same name made their epistemological value identical. In this case the Christian supporters of discrimination pose as “victims of discrimination” while maintaining their policy of discrimination. Using the same set of arguments one might say that the university discriminates against Nazi’s by not funding a Nazi club because it discriminates against Jews, gays and lesbians and any number of other groups.
The support of a public university for any religious organization, let alone one that discriminates against against gays and lesbians is clearly wrong and violates not only the separation of church and state but is illegal because it supports s policy of discrimination bt sexual preference.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Now Dennis is confused. Larry says Christians are being discriminated against, but it isn’t the 15 other Christian groups on campus that are the issue, it is the ONE that excludes others. I am a Christian, have been all my life, and I a conservative. I would never be a member of a group like that. They do not deserve public funding.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Larry (see above) is absolutely correct.
Christianity is suppressed by all means on campus.
Christian groups must have the right to discriminate as they wish. This is a freedom of association, which must be protected at all costs.
December 24th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Harry Says: “If there are non-Christians who are interested in Christianity why can’t they be part of the group? ”
The answer is simple-people like to be with like-minded people. That is the purpose of the club-to be with people which share your system of views. I am not Christian but it seems to me that supporting the freedom of association is a good and even necessary thing to do, for the sake of long-term stability of this (or any) society.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:21 am
All this is the poison fruit that is the result of Institutions of higher education stepping outside their mission of educating students and financing groups with mostly exclusive membership. Why should taxpayer money, alumni money or any other money given to colleges and universities for the purpose of education be used for this? Let all groups, Christian and other, fund themselves. Then they can have any conditions of membership they want.
December 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Harry says: “I work with a major university and all of the ethnic and sexually oriented clubs do NOT require their members to be part of the ethnic group or to have the sexual proclivity in question. ”
May be, but…everybody knows that universities have set aside funding to promote women and minorities among students and faculty. If you are a white make, you simply can not get this special funding. So the principle that funding is equally available to all groups is definitely not maintained in practice.
December 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
In America it has become illegal to put a Christian cross on public ground. No symbol representing any aspect of the Christian religion is allowed on campus or in schools. The reason is the political doctrine of separation of church and state. Yet nobody is requiring that synagogue and state must also be separate. While crosses and ten commandments displays are banned from the White House and any public place, huge Jewish Menorahs are going up by the thousands all over the United States. One of the main groups erecting them is Chabad Lubavitch, an organization that teaches that Gentiles are a lower and different species from Jews and that Gentiles’ entire purpose on earth is only to “serve Jews.” What is going on here is a simply old struggle for power between different groups, and not a struggle for equality or inclusiveness, as some want to believe. Christians are clearly loosing this battle. When funding for Christian groups is cut, this is a sign that Christians are quickly loosing their power and other groups are grabbing the power. It is this simple: if you see a Cross in your schools, that tells you that Christians hold the power, if you see a Menorah, then be sure that Jews hold the power.
December 24th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
The university has the right to fund the groups that meet the prescribed criteria. “…abstain from a “sexually immoral lifestyle” that is inconsistent with the groups’ beliefs.” says it all. The whole point of being a Christian is following the Bible. Any lodge or group has its rules, and people who don’t follow the rules or meet the criteria set by the group will be excluded. You can’t wear your slippers into a Hindu temple. Men cannot enter a Sikh temple without covering their heads. There are rules you need to follow when you attend a mosque. So, why pick on the Christians?? Some simpletons here do not seem to see the point! I agree, the university should not have to fund any bloody group that cries foul!
December 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
All of you need to get something straight – student groups funding is not paid for by taxpayers opr the university, it is paid for by students. Students pay an activity fee given to the student government, which is run by students, who in turn use some of the funding to fund student groups proposed by other students. I currently act as an adviser to two such groups. The only real criteria for these groups is that they are bona fide student groups that have a minimum number of students who wish to be a member, the groups must have certain organizations (president, treasurer, documentation of the organization), must make certain reports (how money was spent and what activities they participated in), and must raise a certain amount of their own money through dues and fund-raising activities, and (here is the kicker) must be OPEN TO ALL STUDENTS WHO WISH TO PARTICIPATE. There are all kinds of religious groups of all faiths, but the major religions have church supported groups that are NOT student organization. For example, the Catholic church, Baptist church, Presbeterian church all have student groups NOT funded by student government.
There may or may not be pressure to reduce public support of religion, or public support of Christianity, or emphasis on minorities and women, but none of that has anything to do with this case. This is very simply a thinly veil hate group trying to work their way into a place they don’t belong.
Personally I think it is disgusting that a group that hates gays and other religions dares to call itself Christian. Christ himself would have never condoned such attitudes and behavior. The man himself made it very clear about what it means to be Christian – you will know them by their love for one another – and he set the example by loving everyone – EVERYONE. Any group that does not at least attempt to live up to that should not call themselves Christian.
HH
December 27th, 2009 at 3:55 am
Harry is quite accurate in stating that these are not public monies the group requested, but a portion of the student fees funding THEY (members of the Christian Legal group) pay into each semester. The group’s likely rationale is that they are only asking for an portion of the funding for their group because they are required to pay for support of student groups they do not value personally (may even disagree with strongly). As a Christian, I find their stance disheartening. If someone was interested in learning about a Christ-centered focus on law, why would you exclude them, regardless of their faith, sexual orientation, or any other difference you may see? It certainly seems contrary to what Christ modeled throughout his life — he was much more critical of the Pharisees, who thought they knew all the answers about what God saw as “righteousness”, than he was of those who were in “fringe” groups or were not religious. This action is certainly not something I or my many Christian friends would agree with.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Mutatis mutandis: “Can universities refuse to recognize and fund Muslim student clubs if members exclude gays, lesbians and non-Muslims?”
December 30th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Marcia said: Mutatis mutandis: “Can universities refuse to recognize and fund Muslim student clubs if members exclude gays, lesbians and non-Muslims?”
Yes, they can and do.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
This is an interesting case, which is obvious since the Supreme Court decided to hear it. Legally, I suspect the private institution is well within its rights to selectively allocate private funding on the basis of a group’s pre-existing membership requirements. Nevertheless, the legal issues aren’t so compelling to me as the theological issues.
First, Christians have become increasingly interested in social policies regarding sexuality for non-Christians. Yet, Matthew 18 and Corinthians 4-6 are explicitly clear that Christians currently are responsible only for the conduct of other Christians (i.e., those who profess Jesus as Lord), not those who do not believe. Any action beyond this tends to be interpreted as pious and a violation of our responsibilities. Why should Christians expect non-Christians to act as they do, or at least to act as they preach?
Second, given the Biblical context of homosexuality (1 Cor 6:9, Rom 1:26), Christians have a responsibility to welcome these individuals as they would any non-Christian. It does the Church no benefit to exclude people who need Christ, and the exclusionary tendencies of the church in this matter do not honor the example of Jesus (Luke 7:34-35). It is enough for each Christian to live life justly, with mercy (i.e., love), and humbly before God.
January 6th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
The Bottom Line is the membership, regardless of the organization on our campus any organization that is not open to all students is not supported through student or university funding. We support out Fraternities and Sororities but we do not fund them. We support other organizations provide space and staff support but not funding if that organization requires membership that is not open to all students. As far as the required GPA technically that group is still open to any student, who makes the grade, often that is just a one time grade check. Cultural / faith / activity / educational groups that are not open to all student just don’t get funding but they still get staff and facility support. Some clubs such as dance or music do have tryouts and often only consist of members but the do have open tryouts and any one can join.
Again the bottom line is this has nothing to do with faith but membership. Our university would never fund this group but I unfortunately would have to still support there right to be a group.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
If I’m a Christian and want to join a Muslim group, is that ok then? Should they be forced to take me even though we have no common faith? Why would anyone want to join a group with which they have no affiliation or common interests? I am a Christian, and I wouldn’t care if someone gay or lesbian joined the group, as long as they were a follower of Jesus Christ. He without sin cast the first stone.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Molly, certainly you should be able to join any group or club publicly funded by your university – your student activity fees pay for it. You don’t have to be Muslim, maybe you want to learn about Islam, or maybe you want to be on the lookout for terrorists, whatever your reason is. University clubs and groups have nothing to do with faith – and apparently you DO have common interest if you WANT to join. As Jim pointed out, any group of people can form a private club or group and have complete control over everything about that group. They might even be welcome to use some university facilities, but they cannot expect funding.
January 20th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Bunch of Christian haters that’s all this is. They don’t believe in homosexuality , but nor does Muslims infact they can kill you legally in some of those African muslim countries. I’m sure they’re not losing their funding are they? Only Christians are hated by the left in this country. The only real freedom of speech they want is their own thoughts and values.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Should a Gentlemen’s Club include women? Girls in the Boy Scouts? Why do people feel that they have to be allowed to be part of EVERYthing? I’m going to sue life because I should be allowed to be fit but don’t want to work out. COME ON. Why do you want to be part of the religious group if you don’t agree with their beliefs? I agree that the school has the right to say “anyone can be part of any club, regardless of charter”, but doesn’t that ruin the purpose of clubs? Won’t that hurt the scuba club if there’s 10 people in it who always show up but can’t swim? There’s a whole other issue here besides the right to make all clubs open. Just cause you can doesn’t mean you should.
January 29th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Paul, certainly we can have clubs of only men, only scuba divers, only christians, etc. But those clubs don’t have the right to demand that those members of society not allowed in their club pay for their club. If you can’t fund your special club yourself, you should really focus on something other than your club – like a job. The university is not saying every club has to allow everyone in – it is saying it only financially supports (with the money collected from the student body) clubs that allow everyone in.
But now that you mention it, what is wrong with being in the scuba club if I can’t swim? I still pay dues. I still can participate in fundraisers, organize trips. Maybe I’m learning to swim, and I like to see the photos from the trips and stuff.
And why should we have men-only clubs? Sure, there are times we only want to have fun with the guys, but a lot of those clubs are business clubs and exclude women for no particular reason. Maybe it IS time we looked at that. My kids were in boy and girl scouts. Half of the stuff they did together as a family, and when they got older I think time apart was good for them. They both had options.
But this really isn’t about any of that. It isn’t about social engineering – it is simply that the student government allocates student paid fees to organizations on campus that are available to all. If you want an exclusive club you are welcome, but you need to fund it yourself. And that is a good idea.
November 3rd, 2010 at 4:51 pm
The title of this story is deceptive. Of course the group can exclude whomever it chooses. But they certainly don’t have a right to force the school to pay for their discrimination. “We’re Christians, so we don’t have to play by the rules” seems to be the philosophy here.