For the members of the Christian Legal Society chapter of the Hastings School of Law out of the University of California, awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court has proved to be a test to their patience. In 2004, the Society sued Hastings School of Law after the school cut their funding and would not allow the club to bear the school’s insignia after the group placed limitations on who could be a member and who could not. The types of student the club mainly discriminated against were non-Christians and gays. In the original case brought to the California court system, the judge sided with Hastings, stating that the school was in the clear when it discounted the club’s credibility as it violated the school’s policies. The case was then brought to the Supreme Court. It was heard in April, 2010, with a decision still pending.
When the club was first established, it did not have any prerequisites when it came to new members. If a person showed interest, they would not be denied entrance. This club policy changed in 2004 when a “statement of Faith” was introduced and needed to be signed by all members, new and old. This statement not so subtly discriminated against non-Christians and gays, denying them entrance into the Christian Legal Society. In order for the club to be recognized by the public institution and to receive its funding, the school requires it to follow the nondiscriminatory policy which Hastings expects all of its student organizations to follow. Because the students were discriminating against others, the school cut their funding and did not want the group to be associated with the school for it had breached policy.
In an attempt to win their funding and recognition back, the group sued the school saying that the group’s first amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion were violated. In 2006, the Federal District Court that heard the case ruled in favor of the school. When the Christian Legal Society appealed the case, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed unanimously that the original court decision was correct for the school’s policies were “viewpoint neutral,” since they require openness of all student groups. Unhappy with this decision, the group took their case to the Supreme Court, citing their former argument that their first amendment rights were violated and that the school’s policy was unconstitutional for denying them these rights.
But who should win here? Should the previous court rulings be upheld because Hastings is a public institution, which “ensures all students have equal access to all school-recognized and school-funded activities”? Or is the Christian Legal Society right? Were their first amendment rights denied to them because they were not allowed to run their club purely by their religion? How should the Supreme Court rule in this matter?
A press release of the Supreme Court hearing can be found at http://www.uchastings.edu/news/docs/cls-v-martinez.pdf
A newspaper editorial expressing thoughts on this case can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19mon2.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=discrimination&st=cse
I think the school should win because not only is it wrong to discriminate against people in their school, but as stated, it is a rule that all students follow the nondiscrimatory policy. I also read the newspaper article and it says that"Under California law, it is illegal for postsecondary educational institutions that receive state money to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation." Therefore, it is also a law in California that institutions who discriminate, can no longer receive money. Therefore, the school is doing nothing wrong by cutting back this group's funding. Althoough the students are argung that their first amendment rights are being violated, in the news article it stated that "The school also has the right to pursue its own educational policy of promoting diversity and opposing discrimination." Therefore, if this group is a part of the school, the school has the right to take action against any discrimination even if it is a violation of one's rights. I think if this group was not a part of the school, it would win this case, but because there are policies against discrimination, I doubt these students will get their funding back.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that this school took action, because discrimination in schools is very popular, and more should be done to stop it.
The right outcome for this case is for the school to win. They are allowed to make policies pertaining to clubs whether students believe that they violate their rights or not. These students were discriminating against others and they shouldn’t be allowed to do so. Discrimination is a huge problem in our society and our schools and should never be supported which is what would happen if this club was still funded. If anything the students in the club were violating the rights of the people they turned down. The students that were turned down have the right to be interested in and be in whatever club they want no matter what religion or sexual orientation. Is it wrong for a Buddhist to be interesting in Catholicism? No. So there should be no problem with these students being in this club. It is wrong for those kids to just turn others away and for them to still be funded.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the school is right to cut funding and support of a group that encourages discrimination. First of all, the club's organizers should be aware of the policies the school has in place and should respect them because attending that school is a choice, not an obligation. Secondly, I think it's important to teach students more than just math or writing skills in college. College is supposed to help prepare students for life and in this day and age where discrimination is less tolerated than in the past, learning to be accepting of everyone is an important lesson. Overall, I think the college did was what right, and I think the Supreme Court will agree with the previous rulings. The college set out their discrimination rules and it is the students' obligation to abide by them if they want to attend that school.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe that people have the right to freedom of religion, but a frequent trend that we see with issues regarding such things so often falls back on the separation of church and state, the freedom of speech and religion, and what this all means. We need to take into account that this is a public school, not affiliated with any religions. When the group was first established, any student was allowed to be a member. It was funded and supported by the public school, and it was not discriminatory towards certain minorities. This group has since not allowed certain groups of people to join due to their religion, since they have to make a pledge. This does, however, violate school policy. So it does make sense that if the group cannot follow the school policy, they will no longer be supported by them financially or in any other way. If you want to be financially supported by the school, you should follow their policies. Discriminating against certain people based on such things is not a right thing for anyone to do, especially at a public school. It is totally understandable that the school would not want their name all over this, and I think that if they did support the group, there would most likely be more controversy and dispute than there is now. If you want to be a part of a group on a school campus, you should be able to include everyone.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the Hastings School of Law should win the ruling by the Supreme Court. When first reading this article, I wondered why the people in the club would rather take a case to the Supreme Court case over simply switching the school they attend. If the club can be commended for anything, I now think it is for not giving up what they believe is a lack of their rights. The only argument I can see that the club has, however, is that their First Amendment rights were violated. Even so, when the individuals started going to Hastings, they should have known the policies like “all students have equal access to all school-recognized and school-funded activities” as well as the nondiscriminatory policy which I believe should exist in every institution. Furthermore, I think it was wise of the school to not allow the club to wear the school's insignia. The school did not want to be associated with a club that discriminates. Who would?
ReplyDeleteThere is no way that the group should win the case and get back funding if it is still discriminating against people due to their religion and sexual orientation. The group was wrong to discriminate and there is no way that their first amendment rights should allow them to reject people from their group because of who they are. The first amendment gives everyone the freedom of religion and if the group is expecting to be protected under this, they should realize that everyone who wants to join their group is also protected under the amendment. It should not matter what religion a person practices or if they are gay or not; the group should not bar anyone from their group because of these reasons. It is immoral and not fair at all. Everyone should be accepted equally. Furthermore, I believe the school had every right to cut funding and distance itself from the group especially since their motto “ensures all students have equal access to all school-recognized and school-funded activities.” I cannot even believe that the group thinks that the Supreme Court will rule differently and overturn the previous ruling. If the Supreme Court does overturn the ruling, then I think there is a serious flaw with the judicial system. Our country has made great strides in trying to be accepting of everyone, and by allowing groups to deny entrance to people because they are gay, then that would be taking a giant step backwards for our country.
ReplyDeleteHastings College of Law presents a very good argument against the christian Legal Society. The Chancellor of the school clearly explained the college's policy when he said, "It guarantees the educational and social opportunities these registered organizations represent are available to all students. And it complies with the institution’s obligation under California law to prevent discrimination in its publicly funded programs and activities." Not only is this the college's rule but also one of the State of California. Members of the Christian Legal society violated the schools rule and the states and therefore should receive more punishment than just cut funding. Although we have rights granted by the constitution, like freedom of speech, when you pay to attend a private institution you have to abide by their policies and if you don't agree then you can always transfer out. Its clear that these people have their own personal beliefs but those beliefs should not get in the way of another students college experience, especially when they also pay tuition to attend. From reading the brief i have a strong belief that the college will prevail, especially with the support of organizations like the American Bar Association and the National Education Association.
ReplyDelete