Other groups on campus get funding and yet have rules that members have to support the organization’s mission. By singling out this group for exclusion they have violated the right of the group to free association. If you say that everyone gets to have support and everyone gets to define their memberships except for one group, then the state is discriminating against that group. This is the majority deciding that an unpopular minority gets fewer rights than everyone else. The purpose of the constitution and the supreme court is to prevent things like this from happening. This decision is a black eye to the court and to our country.
There are other groups who fall foul of this particular university requirement, yet still get support? Which and how do they fall foul of it?
Somewhere, Groucho Marx is smiling.
But doing so on a discriminatory basis might be a problem.
Everything you said is simply not true. Even the lawyers for the Christian Legal Society conceded that the same set of rules were being applied to every student organization.
If the CLS had been granted an exemption than it would have become a situation where some groups received special treatment that other groups were denied. But the majority decided that the government should treat everyone the same and give everyone the same rights.
Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. They apparently feel that Christians should have more rights than other people. I guess that’s how they read the original intent of the First Amendment.
It was not done on a discriminatory basis in the case.
Yes. Because when you want to identify an unpopular minority in this country, Christianity, which 76% of American’s claim to be, is always the first group I point to.
What case were you listening to? CLS stipulated that Hastings changed it policy to all comers in response to the lawsuit, however it argued persuasively that the policy was applied in a discriminatory manner. CLS is the only group ever denied recognition and funding. Before this case the only standards for recognition were student interest and non-commercial. These standards were changed for the express purpose of excluding CLS. Other groups mentioned in the opinion which have standards for admission are the Democratic Caucus and the Vietnamese Legal Association. I am sure that the branch of La Raza is all hispanic, the Republican Club is all republican, and the Muslim organization is all muslim. Also registration is not just about funding, registered groups on campus get priority for meeting space and other privileges.
I’m sure you are wrong. When I was at Law School I was a member of the Federalist Society, the Woman’s Law Society and the Black Law Students Society, despite being a white male who thinks Federalists are intellectually bankrupt ignorami.
And they couldn’t have stopped me joining (even had they wanted to, which they didn’t) because of the policies of my private University.
So if David Duke III starts a KKK club on campus, and this club excludes blacks and jews, is the university obligated to provide funding? Or can they use their non-discrimination policy to say that, although the club is allowed to exist, they don’t qualify for public support?
Come on now, CurtC. Everyone knows David Duke III would go to Pepperdine Law not UC Hastings.
I think you’re assuming facts not in evidence. Can you demonstrate that any of the groups you mention actively exclude anybody from membership? Can you even show that they definitely do NOT have the kind of anomalous members that you suggest (can you show that the La Raza group does not have any non-Hispanic members, for instance, or that the Republican group doesn’t have any independents) or is that just an assumption you’re making? If you can’t actually prove these groups have an active policy of exclusion, you don’t have a case for discrimination by the university.
I meant the other way around. I confused myself (and I’m hoping to confuse you enough that you won’t notice).
I don’t understand how school organizations work, hence this question: What would the possible redress of a university-recognized x organization if they are flooded with y-minded individuals who subvert the purpose of said x organization to make it into a y-organization? Does said x-organization need to refile to become a y-organization? X-minded members can certainly form another group, but what would stop the y-minded people from doing it all over again?
Why would x organization need redress if they were publically funded? To have a tort, you need to have suffered damage.
Can we just leave algebra out of this?
Wow; that’s a pretty hefty declaration there. Do you have a cite to back that up?
Could you link those standards for us? And then can you show us that they are in fact recognized by and receiving funding from UC Hastings?
If you are sure, you must have found that information somewhere; could you link it for us?
The Great Swami says:
If you get a link at all, it’ll be to a hard right-wing web site that’ll then have the same shit either completely unsupported or supported by an “unnamed UC-Hastings student”.
I said it in another thread, the fact that the right wing now feel completely comfortable making shit up is a danger to the Republic. At this pace, we’re less than a decade away from brown shirts in the street and the Kristallnacht.
I’m not talking about damages. I’m just wondering whether the court ruling opens up a lot of organizations from hostile takeovers and whether any university would be able to prevent it.
From the dissenting opinion:
Earlier in the dissent:
From the SCOTUS dissenting opinion:
These are recognized organizations.